DEBUNKING THE TRUMP REGIME’S WHITE NATIONALIST MYTHS☠️: Furthering & Protecting Immigrants’ Rights Benefits Society — Bogus “COVID-19” Visa Restrictions & Other Nativist Nonsense Enabled By Feckless Congress & Failing Courts Hurts America!

Gaurav Khanna
Assistant Professor of Economics
U.S. San Diego

https://apple.news/AtzkkrgAGThCSMutjCZCjAg

From SCIENMAG:

New Visa restrictions will make the US economic downturn worse

New research shows legal protections for immigrants improve lives and livelihoods of citizen workers

The Trump administration is expected to set limits on a popular program that allows international students to work in the U.S. after graduation while remaining on their student visas. The restrictions on the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program are designed to help American graduates seeking jobs during the pandemic-fueled economic downturn; however, the move is likely to further hurt the economy, according to new University of California San Diego research on immigrant rights.

In a new research paper, economists find that immigrant rights enhance the lives and livelihoods of native-born workers in many ways. Drawing from a sweeping collection of studies on the U.S. labor market over the past century, the paper is the first of its kind to look at how legal protections for immigrants affect domestic workers of immigrant-receiving countries in terms of generating income, innovation, reducing crime and increasing tax revenues.

One in eight persons living in the United States was born in a different country. Therefore understanding the impact of migrant worker rights on receiving economies is crucial to immigration policymaking, especially with the White House’s immigration policies growing more exclusionary during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This time the political restrictions seem to be on high-skill foreign-born, like students, OPTs and those with H1B visas,” said Gaurav Khanna, co-author and assistant professor of economics at the UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy (GPS). “Many high-skill workers have lost their jobs, which means many will have to leave the country soon. When the U.S. crisis abates, there may be a scarcity of high-skill professionals, which could stall a robust recovery.”

Legal protections for immigrants aid entrepreneurship and innovation

About 45 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. These companies amass more than $6 trillion in revenue per year and include tech-giants like Google-Alphabet, Microsoft, Tesla and Apple. With one in four of computer scientists born in a different country, the U.S. immigrant workforce comprises of many of Silicon Valley’s top entrepreneurs, current CEOs or company founders.

As entrepreneurs know, starting a business requires a lot of money up front while the return on investment may take years, but the benefits to the local populations prove to be very positive from the start.

With the economy contracting at unprecedented levels, the White House’s decision to impose more visa restrictions is expected make economic recovery more difficult because the less confidence immigrants have in their status, the less likely they are to seed innovation and create businesses.

Providing legal permanence and stability to immigrants may help incentivize long-term local investments like businesses which lead to an increase in jobs and a larger tax base, Khanna and co-author Anna Brown, a graduate of GPS’s Master of Public Policy program write.

H1-B under fire, despite its well-documented economic benefits

Most technology workers enter the U.S. on H-1B visas, which are temporary work visas that are valid for three years and renewable up to another three years. At the end of the six-year period, these highly-skilled workers must either leave the country or apply for a costly green card that has a long waitlist, particularly for citizens of India and China.

“Extending the H-1B limit or making the green card process easier would provide immigrants with a longer legal work status in the U.S. and allow employers to retain high-skill talent, which could have downstream effects on other industries that use software, like banking, manufacturing and other sectors,” the authors write.

Since the H-1B visa was in introduced in 1990, it has yielded many economic benefits. For example, U.S.-born workers gained $431 million in 2010 as a result of the H-1B, according to previous research from Khanna. Moreover, another study of his revealed that hiring H-1B workers was strongly associated with firms introducing newer products.

However, new restrictions to the H-1B, the same type of visa the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk, used to begin working in the U.S., could be released soon as the White House recently indicated it is reevaluating the program. This could yield another roadblock for the legalization of immigrants with entrepreneurial ambition.

“Unless immigrants are certain they will be allowed to remain within a country, they may not invest in developing a business in that country,” Khanna and Brown write. “This highlights a problem faced by many migrants who have ambitions to start businesses but will not because they know they may not be able to stay in the country for long.”

More protections for immigrants increases the likelihoods of jobs going to native born-workers, over immigrants

In addition to analyzing how immigrant rights aid entrepreneurship, Khanna and Brown also looked at how these policies impact the competition between native-born and immigrant workers. Immigrant worker rights protect migrant workers from employer exploitation; an indirect benefit of these laws is that they even the playing field between immigrants and non-immigrants.

“Migrant workers, who are not legally protected, face much lower wages compared with their native counterparts,” according to Khanna. “This is detrimental to U.S. born workers, who are less likely to be hired. Ensuring migrant workers have substantial rights inadvertently helps U.S. born workers as well.”

The study points to exclusionary immigration policies over the course of U.S. history, from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations’ policies targeted at farmworkers, all of which were driven by fear of low-skill laborers from other countries depressing wages of native-born workers in the U.S.

However, economist all over the world have been unable to find evidence that proves these theories. Rather, in each of these cases throughout U.S. history, employers adjusted to the missing workers in ways other than substantially bidding up wages, such as by shifting to production technologies that use less labor.

“Often, such policies have been motivated by resentment against foreign workers; however, this fear may be based on false perceptions and lack of evidence,” the authors of the paper, which appeared in the UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs, write. “This resentment may also be driven by racial prejudices and xenophobia.”

Rights for immigrants also lower crimes in receiving countries

Even as the discussion on the impact of immigration has predominantly focused on wages and employment, the current U.S. President has strongly alluded to a link between immigrants and crime, propelling growing discourse on the subject.

Between 2001 and 2017, Gallup polls consistently reflected that roughly half (45 percent to 58 percent) of American respondents believe immigrants make the crime situation worse. These assumptions are false. The authors cite ample research that sheds light on incarceration rates being lower for immigrants, and far lower for newly arrived immigrants, revealing the baseline for criminal activity among immigrants is lower than native-born workers.

In addition, the authors point to previous studies that revealed a correlation between immigrant rights with decreased crime over the course of four decades (1970 to 2010).

“This is because the less protection and work opportunities immigrants have, the more likely they are to turn to criminal activity, as an act of desperation,” said Khanna. “Criminal behavior is widely understood to be a result of necessity and when given legal employment opportunities at livable wages, crime is reduced.”

For example, after the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of was implemented in 1986, which gave legal status to three million immigrants in the U.S., it led to a marked decrease in crime up to 5 percent.

Legal protections lower the fiscal burden and reduce deficits

Contrary to popular belief, undocumented migrant workers pay taxes, mostly income taxes, which are estimated to at $11.7 billion. Yet the number would be higher (by $2.2 billion) if undocumented migrants were granted legal status, an important consideration as the national deficit mounts in the wake of COVID-19.

Additional ways more protections for migrants would help domestic populous could be lower health care costs. Undocumented migrants may not be eligible for insurance, adding to healthcare costs in times of emergency.

“We find that the fiscal burden can be greatly reduced if immigrants are given working status and allowed to contribute to the tax base,” the authors wrote. “In conclusion, we find there are several areas where strengthening migrant worker rights benefits native-born workers, outweighing any costs borne by them.”

To read the full paper, go to the UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs website.

Media Contact
Christine Clark
ceclark@ucsd.edu
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/new-visa-restrictions-will-make-the-u.s-economic-downturn-worse

***********************

The fear mongering, racist lies, anti-scientific BS, and White Nationalist false narratives pushed by the Trump regime and enabled by a feckless Congress and complicit Article III Courts that refuse to give meaning to our Constitution and statutes while failing to require honesty and candor from the Administration are destroying America.

No, everything can’t be changed overnight. Sadly, the damage inflicted by Trump, his corrupt cronies, and his supporters on America and on our democratic institutions is huge; it will take years if not decades to repair. That’s what makes the exceptionally poor performance of Congress and the Federal Judiciary as a whole under the defective leadership of the Supremes so reprehensible. Far, far too many of the wrong people in the wrong jobs at the worst time in our history for fecklessness, lack of courage, and absence of integrity, not to mention empathy and compassion for “the other.” Disgraceful!

But regime change and appointing Federal Judges who demonstrate “community creds,” a commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice under law, human rights, and human decency would be an important necessary step to making social justice in America a reality rather than just a slogan. It would also help protect us against any future “Trump-style, neo-fascist regime.”

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

PWS

06-06-20

COURTSIDE GUEST COLUMNIST: ANNA PATCHIN SCHMIDT — “2020 End of School Year Roundup From Beloit, WI”

2020 End of School Year Roundup From Beloit, Wisconsin

By Anna Patchin Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

June 5, 2020. I almost couldn’t pull this off this year due to the realities of quarantine life. But here are my annual end-of-the-year reflections on education (and life)!

It has been a tumultuous school year in Beloit. We saw yet another superintendent come and go, but not before sustaining damage from his abusive leadership style and warped priorities. For a while the anonymous facebook profile “Jane Smith” stole our attention with a series of fascinating social media exposés. An election that coincided with a stay-at-home order and a brazen disregard for life and democratic values by state lawmakers, did at least result in some refreshing new faces on the school board. Meanwhile, a so-called “public” charter school has used the chance to sneak into town and garner support by exploiting the fears of white parents and the frustrations of parents of color.

And yet amidst the chaos and uncertainty of distance learning during a global pandemic, I actually think that we are in a better position than ever. Indeed, our current explosive national climate should be a wake up call that results in a renewed commitment to public education and a heightened awareness of its vital role in communities.

Earlier this year, long before the trauma induced by Covid-19 and George Floyd’s murder, I noticed a troubling narrative reflected in many conversations: “The School District of Beloit USED TO BE great,” or similarly, “The School District of Beloit is not the right place for my child ANYMORE.” Only now, in light of recent events, do I better understand what this narrative means. I can’t help but think that its unspoken truth is: “We never USED TO have to talk about race. We USED TO be able to push all this under the rug.”

If we are really serious about dismantling racism, as so many claim to be, then we need to get serious about supporting public schools. No doubt the public schools have a long-standing history of perpetuating systemic racism and oppression. I’m hardly suggesting that we ignore or accept the status quo. On the contrary, we still need the reforms inspired by activists that help our schools function better and thus serve all members of the community. This kind of activism could take many forms, including standing up to a corrupt school board member, pushing for teacher training on equity and trauma-informed instruction, promoting fair and representative hiring practices, or raising concerns about how bias influences individual and district-wide policies resulting in a disproportionate effect.

But instead of contributing towards positive change, many people opt out of public schools with the following justifications:

-“We are looking for a more rigorous curriculum.”

-“I’m concerned about all the behavior problems in public schools.”

-“I don’t think I should have to sacrifice my own child to make a political statement.”

-“We had a really bad experience with a teacher or principal.”

-“The school district doesn’t meet the individual needs of MY child.”

These types of explanations may not be racist in intent but, nevertheless, the results of these decisions do reinforce inequity. There are easy outs and self-serving options (for those few who have the resources to make these choices), but they do not hold up for those who are serious about being anti-racist. Private schools and charter schools will always be selective about who and how many students they serve. They continue to siphon funds away from public schools that desperately need them and their profit and successes are paid for by the struggle of others. We all live with a fair amount of hypocrisy in our lives. But the discrepancy between sharing black lives matter memes and then opting out of public school is just too much for me.

When I reflect on the sentiment that Beloit schools “used to be great,” I can’t help but think about the huge number of people marching at Horace White Park last Sunday, many of whom were our students. Their presence, their courage, and their sense of purpose is, for me, a marker of success and greatness and I’m proud to support them. While there are a growing number of fears I have for my own children as they grow up in this world, the value of their education in the School District of Beloit isn’t one of them.

*********************

Anna Patchin Schmidt is a High School English teacher in the Public Schools of Beloit, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband, Professor Daniel Barolsky, and their three children Oscar, Eve, and Atticus, all of whom attend a bilingual program at Todd Elementary School, a Beloit Public School. Anna holds a B.A. and a B.Mus., both with honors, from Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin where she was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She received her M.A. in Education from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. She is also certified to teach English Language Learning and did so in the Menasha and Walworth, Wisconsin Public School Systems before joining the Beloit System. She and Daniel are dedicated members of the “Beloit Proud” Movement, and she is also a qualified Doula who has assisted in the delivery of several babies. Anna grew up in Alexandria, Virginia, where she attended Alexandria City Public Schools (as did her brothers, Wick & Will) and graduated from T.C. Williams High School (“Remember the Titans”) with honors, earning 12 varsity letters, rowing on several championship crew teams, and playing oboe in the T.C. Williams Band. She is our daughter.

PWS

06-05-20

🗽👍REBUKING THE WHITE NATIONALIST MYTHS: A Nation of Immigrants Will Continue to Need Robust Immigration

https://apple.news/A2Vejg2BpTx-0GpMm0VcwCw

Jonah Black writes in International Policy Digest:

The Case for Immigration

America’s identity for the past two centuries or so has been largely defined by its acceptance of, as Emma Lazarus so eloquently puts it, the world’s “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This is what distinguishes us from otherwise similar European nations, and is arguably what makes our nation the most socially advanced in the world. However, our melting pot structure has long faced opposition from Americans seeking to limit ethnic diversity. This is sometimes a result of supremacist sentiment, but it more often stems from a desire to limit conflict. The latter argument holds some validity; cultural differences will ensue discord in a civilization, at least to some extent. But we are America. A land where individuality should be appreciated, and where coexistence should, therefore, be possible. We ought not to deny anyone the opportunity to contribute to the world’s largest and most valuable social experiment, regardless of their country of origin.

Currently, the requirements to become a naturalized American citizen are extensive and unrealistic. When seeking citizenship, they must first apply for a green card which, if obtained, gives them a “permanent resident” status. This sounds simple enough, but the reality is that as of late September 2019 there were still 572,501 pending I-485 forms (green card applications) from both that year and years past. And while that number is large, it was still a significant improvement from the 681,898 pending forms as of late June 2018.

Now, let’s say they get lucky and are approved for permanent residency status; they will have to leave their home and move themselves and their immediate family to a foreign country with no guarantee of a place to live or work. Despite what conditions they may endure there, they must persist for five whole years in order to fulfill a naturalization requirement. So they somehow manage to do so, and assuming they meet all the other criteria, they are now eligible to apply for naturalization. They fill out the N-400 form (of which there were still 647,585 pending at the end of 2019), and after all they’ve been through, applicants still have around a ten percent chance of being denied citizenship. It’s clear why so many immigrants choose to enter our country illegally, and why we therefore have a detainee crisis on the southern border.

The solution for the first issue, unfortunately, cannot easily be brought to fruition. Ideally, we could just revert immigration policy to what it was for the hundred or so years after our country’s inception. After all, assuming everyone in the world who wanted to live here did so, we’d only have around 135 people per square mile; far less than many of our first-world counterparts. Furthermore, this policy would be more demonstrative of the “freedom for all” doctrine our country is supposed to stand for. Unfortunately, while pro-immigration sentiment has steadily increased over the past couple of decades, only about thirty percent of Americans are keen to see immigration rates rise further. Many of those opposed continuously argue the same point: an increase in immigration would lead to fewer employment opportunities for those already living here.

However, the reality is that immigrants, particularly those of the lower class, often take jobs that others don’t want and that their continued immigration is essential to maintaining America’s workforce. These facts suggest that those making the aforementioned argument are doing so to conceal their true rationale for opposing heightened immigration rates. But as long as these people constitute the majority of our society, there isn’t a lot we can do besides continuing to make our case to the proper authority and anyone who will listen.

As for the detainee crisis, I still do not have a solution with which I am satisfied that would coincide with our current immigration policies. Those who came here seeking political asylum should be granted it; their extended detention is in violation of international law. But many of those being detained are not seeking asylum, and do not have the necessary documents to prove that they are either a permanent resident or a naturalized citizen. It’d be nice if we could just give them a green card and be done with it, but that would be unfair to those who have been waiting months, or even years, for the same opportunity. Alternatively, if we put them at the back of the queue, they themselves might have to wait for a similar amount of time. In which case, would they remain in detainment (potentially for years) until they are approved permanent resident status.

The only solution I can find calls for a complete revision of U.S. immigration laws, which makes it of utmost importance that we keep pushing for such revisions. One thing I can say though is that conditions in our detainment facilities need to be improved. Firsthand accounts of those residing within reveal the hypocrisy in our nation’s propagated doctrines of liberty and democracy. Our treatment of non-citizens, whom we have no legal duty to provide for, demonstrates our character to the rest of the world.

To quote the Russian Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine, “entropy is the price of structure.” If we want progress, we must accept the disharmony that precedes it. Increased immigration rates would surely elicit an uproar from a significant portion of the population. But ultimately, the range of unique ideas brought forth by those entering our country would be invaluable. When used correctly, ideological conflict is the most effective way to stimulate growth. What better way to create such conflict than to integrate people from all over the world into a single society? For the rest of the world, we are the pioneers. It is our task to demonstrate that coexistence is not only possible in an institution but beneficial towards that institution’s progress.

Jonah Black has participated in several mentoring programs throughout his community in both privileged and underserved areas. His goal has always been to maximize his kids’ potential in their respective areas of interest while still maintaining a low-pressure environment. In his free time, Jonah likes to hang out with his dogs and play chess. His career goal is to become a doctor, mostly because he sees medicine as one of the world’s highest callings.

******************

Yup!

PWS

06-05-20

ANNE APPLEBAUM @ THE ATLANTIC: “History Will Judge the Complicit: Why have Republican leaders abandoned their principles in support of an immoral and dangerous president?” ☠️👎🏻

https://apple.news/Al__dZnidS7iBkjiQiuWRfg

. . . .

In February, many members of the Republican Party leadership, Republican senators, and people inside the administration used various versions of these rationales to justify their opposition to impeachment. All of them had seen the evidence that Trump had stepped over the line in his dealings with the president of Ukraine. All of them knew that he had tried to use American foreign-policy tools, including military funding, to force a foreign leader into investigating a domestic political opponent. Yet Republican senators, led by Mitch McConnell, never took the charges seriously. They mocked the Democratic House leaders who had presented the charges. They decided against hearing evidence. With the single exception of Romney, they voted in favor of ending the investigation. They did not use the opportunity to rid the country of a president whose operative value system—built around corruption, nascent authoritarianism, self-regard, and his family’s business interests—runs counter to everything that most of them claim to believe in.

Just a month later, in March, the consequences of that decision became suddenly clear. After the U.S. and the world were plunged into crisis by a coronavirus that had no cure, the damage done by the president’s self-focused, self-dealing narcissism—his one true “ideology”—was finally visible. He led a federal response to the virus that was historically chaotic. The disappearance of the federal government was not a carefully planned transfer of power to the states, as some tried to claim, or a thoughtful decision to use the talents of private companies. This was the inevitable result of a three-year assault on professionalism, loyalty, competence, and patriotism. Tens of thousands of people have died, and the economy has been ruined.

This utter disaster was avoidable. If the Senate had removed the president by impeachment a month earlier; if the Cabinet had invoked the Twenty-Fifth Amendment as soon as Trump’s unfitness became clear; if the anonymous and off-the-record officials who knew of Trump’s incompetence had jointly warned the public; if they had not, instead, been so concerned about maintaining their proximity to power; if senators had not been scared of their donors; if Pence, Pompeo, and Barr had not believed that God had chosen them to play special roles in this “biblical moment”—if any of these things had gone differently, then thousands of deaths and a historic economic collapse might have been avoided.

The price of collaboration in America has already turned out to be extraordinarily high. And yet, the movement down the slippery slope continues, just as it did in so many occupied countries in the past. First Trump’s enablers accepted lies about the inauguration; now they accept terrible tragedy and the loss of American leadership in the world. Worse could follow. Come November, will they tolerate—even abet—an assault on the electoral system: open efforts to prevent postal voting, to shut polling stations, to scare people away from voting? Will they countenance violence, as the president’s social-media fans incite demonstrators to launch physical attacks on state and city officials?

Each violation of our Constitution and our civic peace gets absorbed, rationalized, and accepted by people who once upon a time knew better. If, following what is almost certain to be one of the ugliest elections in American history, Trump wins a second term, these people may well accept even worse. Unless, of course, they decide not to.

When I visited Marianne Birthler, she didn’t think it was interesting to talk about collaboration in East Germany, because everybody collaborated in East Germany. So I asked her about dissidence instead: When all of your friends, all of your teachers, and all of your employers are firmly behind the system, how do you find the courage to oppose it? In her answer, Birthler resisted the use of the word courage; just as people can adapt to corruption or immorality, she told me, they can slowly learn to object as well. The choice to become a dissident can easily be the result of “a number of small decisions that you take”—to absent yourself from the May Day parade, for example, or not to sing the words of the party hymn. And then, one day, you find yourself irrevocably on the other side. Often, this process involves role models. You see people whom you admire, and you want to be like them. It can even be “selfish.” “You want to do something for yourself,” Birthler said, “to respect yourself.”

For some people, the struggle is made easier by their upbringing. Marko Martin’s parents hated the East German regime, and so did he. His father was a conscientious objector, and so was he. As far back as the Weimar Republic, his great-grandparents had been part of the “anarcho-syndicalist” anti-Communist left; he had access to their books. In the 1980s, he refused to join the Free German Youth, the Communist youth organization, and as a result he could not go to university. He instead embarked on a vocational course, to train to be an electrician (after refusing to become a butcher). In his electrician-training classes, one of the other students pulled him aside and warned him, subtly, that the Stasi was collecting information on him: “It’s not necessary that you tell me all the things you have in mind.” He was eventually allowed to emigrate, in May 1989, just a few months before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In America we also have our Marianne Birthlers, our Marko Martins: people whose families taught them respect for the Constitution, who have faith in the rule of law, who believe in the importance of disinterested public service, who have values and role models from outside the world of the Trump administration. Over the past year, many such people have found the courage to stand up for what they believe. A few have been thrust into the limelight. Fiona Hill—an immigrant success story and a true believer in the American Constitution—was not afraid to testify at the House’s impeachment hearings, nor was she afraid to speak out against Republicans who were promulgating a false story of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves,” she said in her congressional testimony. “The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016.”

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman—another immigrant success story and another true believer in the American Constitution—also found the courage, first to report on the president’s improper telephone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, which Vindman had heard as a member of the National Security Council, and then to speak publicly about it. In his testimony, he made explicit reference to the values of the American political system, so different from those in the place where he was born. “In Russia,” he said, “offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life.” But as “an American citizen and public servant … I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.” A few days after the Senate impeachment vote, Vindman was physically escorted out of the White House by representatives of a vengeful president who did not appreciate Vindman’s hymn to American patriotism—although retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, the president’s former chief of staff, apparently did. Vindman’s behavior, Kelly said in a speech a few days later, was “exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave. He went and told his boss what he just heard.”

[Read: John Kelly finally lets loose on Trump]

But both Hill and Vindman had some important advantages. Neither had to answer to voters, or to donors. Neither had prominent status in the Republican Party. What would it take, by contrast, for Pence or Pompeo to conclude that the president bears responsibility for a catastrophic health and economic crisis? What would it take for Republican senators to admit to themselves that Trump’s loyalty cult is destroying the country they claim to love? What would it take for their aides and subordinates to come to the same conclusion, to resign, and to campaign against the president? What would it take, in other words, for someone like Lindsey Graham to behave like Wolfgang Leonhard?

If, as Stanley Hoffmann wrote, the honest historian would have to speak of “collaborationisms,” because the phenomenon comes in so many variations, the same is true of dissidence, which should probably be described as “dissidences.” People can suddenly change their minds because of spontaneous intellectual revelations like the one Wolfgang Leonhard had when walking into his fancy nomenklatura dining room, with its white tablecloths and three-course meals. They can also be persuaded by outside events: rapid political changes, for example. Awareness that the regime had lost its legitimacy is part of what made Harald Jaeger, an obscure and until that moment completely loyal East German border guard, decide on the night of November 9, 1989, to lift the gates and let his fellow citizens walk through the Berlin Wall—a decision that led, over the next days and months, to the end of East Germany itself. Jaeger’s decision was not planned; it was a spontaneous response to the fearlessness of the crowd. “Their will was so great,” he said years later, of those demanding to cross into West Berlin, “there was no other alternative than to open the border.”

But these things are all intertwined, and not easy to disentangle. The personal, the political, the intellectual, and the historical combine differently within every human brain, and the outcomes can be unpredictable. Leonhard’s “sudden” revelation may have been building for years, perhaps since his mother’s arrest. Jaeger was moved by the grandeur of the historical moment on that night in November, but he also had more petty concerns: He was annoyed at his boss, who had not given him clear instructions about what to do.

Could some similar combination of the petty and the political ever convince Lindsey Graham that he has helped lead his country down a blind alley? Perhaps a personal experience could move him, a prod from someone who represents his former value system—an old Air Force buddy, say, whose life has been damaged by Trump’s reckless behavior, or a friend from his hometown. Perhaps it requires a mass political event: When the voters begin to turn, maybe Graham will turn with them, arguing, as Jaeger did, that “their will was so great … there was no other alternative.” At some point, after all, the calculus of conformism will begin to shift. It will become awkward and uncomfortable to continue supporting “Trump First,” especially as Americans suffer from the worst recession in living memory and die from the coronavirus in numbers higher than in much of the rest of the world.

Or perhaps the only antidote is time. In due course, historians will write the story of our era and draw lessons from it, just as we write the history of the 1930s, or of the 1940s. The Miłoszes and the Hoffmanns of the future will make their judgments with the clarity of hindsight. They will see, more clearly than we can, the path that led the U.S. into a historic loss of international influence, into economic catastrophe, into political chaos of a kind we haven’t experienced since the years leading up to the Civil War. Then maybe Graham—along with Pence, Pompeo, McConnell, and a whole host of lesser figures—will understand what he has enabled.

In the meantime, I leave anyone who has the bad luck to be in public life at this moment with a final thought from Władysław Bartoszewski, who was a member of the wartime Polish underground, a prisoner of both the Nazis and the Stalinists, and then, finally, the foreign minister in two Polish democratic governments. Late in his life—he lived to be 93—he summed up the philosophy that had guided him through all of these tumultuous political changes. It was not idealism that drove him, or big ideas, he said. It was this: Warto być przyzwoitym—“Just try to be decent.” Whether you were decent—that’s what will be remembered.

This article appears in the July/August 2020 print edition with the headline “The Collaborators.”

***************************

Read Applebaum’s entire, much longer article at the link. Part of it is a fascinating study of how and why, despite backgrounds pointing in exactly the opposite directions, Lindsey Graham abandoned principle and became one of Trump’s “chief collaborators,” while Mitt Romney stood up against Trump and his GOP collaborators in the Senate.

These days, the GOP doesn’t produce many folks with intellectual honesty and capacity for self-examination. Indeed, those exhibiting anything suggesting those qualities might be lurking in their souls are shunned or railroaded out of the party (see, e.g., Jeff Flake). So, I wouldn’t hold my breath for any of Trump’s toadies to actually own up to or take responsibility for their “crimes against humanity.”

And “decency,” well, that’s been absent from GOP politicos for some time now. Kids in cages. Taking away the legal and constitutional rights of asylum seekers. Sending abused women refugees back to be tortured by their abusers. Attacking California’s meager payments to our undocumented fellow humans, many performing essential services at risk to their health. Turning Immigration Courts into Star Chambers. Using false narratives to incite hate attacks on African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and American Journalists. Failing to speak out forcefully against anti-semitic White Nationalist thugs. Looking the other way or even encouraging Trump to mistreat those courageous civil servants who dare speak truth to his lies. “Orbiting” vulnerable asylum seekers back to squalid danger zones. Denying detained kids toothbrushes.The list of indecent acts could go on almost forever.

But, fortunately, as Applebaum suggests, that won’t save these GOP collaborators from the judgments of history. Unfortunately, however, historical vindication won’t save the lives of those victims who have died at the collaborators’ hands, nor will it undo the scars that some will bear for life as the result of the “crimes against humanity” committed by Trump and his GOP cronies. And, that’s the indelible shame of a nation that let Trump and the GOP wield their toxic political power in the first place.

Due Process Forever! Complicity in the Face of Tyranny, Never!

PWS

06-04-20

🤡CLOWN SHORTAGE IN AMERICA? — EOIR CAN’T FIND ONE TO FILL DEPUTY DIRECTOR JOB — Re-Advertises, Again! — ☠️☠️☠️WARNING: Successful Candidate Must Have Experience in “Cooking Books” & Be Willing “Fall Guy” For America’s Most Dysfunctional Parody of a “Court System!”☠️☠️☠️

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Deputy Director

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Overview
Locations
Duties
Requirements
Required Documents
Benefits
How to apply

Help Help

Overview

Open & closing dates
Opening and closing dates 06/02/2020 to 07/02/2020

Service
Senior Executive

Pay scale & grade
ES 00

Salary
$131,239 to $197,300 per year

Appointment type
Permanent

Work schedule
Full-Time

Help Help

Location

1 vacancy in the following location:

Falls Church, VAFalls Church, VA

Relocation expenses reimbursed

No

Telework eligible

No

Help Help

This job is open to

Senior executives
Those who meet the five Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs).

Clarification from the agency

U.S. Citizens

Apply

Print Print

Share Share

Save

Announcement number

SES-10830644-20-AS

Control number

569755300

Duties
Help Help
Duties
Summary
If you are interested in a rewarding and challenging career, this is the position for you!

Learn more about this agency
Responsibilities
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals in becoming a part of our challenging and rewarding Agency. The primary mission of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the Immigration Courts where Immigration Judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of these Immigration Judge decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases.

This position is located in the Office of the Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U. S. Department of Justice. Incumbent serves as the Deputy Director. This position enjoys the full delegated authority of the Director to manage all aspects of EOIR operations. Thus, the incumbent is responsible for the supervision of the Chairman of BIA, the Chief of OCIJ, the Chief of OCAHO, and all agency personnel in the execution of their duties.

Typical work assignments will include:

Responsible for the formulation and administration of policies affecting the mission of EOIR.

Manages the development, evaluation, and implementation of policies for agency-wide programs.

Explores and plans long-range development goals, as well as short-term strategies.

Develops and implements funding and resource strategies to further the agency’s goals and oversees strategic planning for all agency components.

Exercises the authority delegated by the Attorney General and represents the position and policies of EOIR the the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, Members of Congress and other governmental bodies, the press, the bar, and private groups interested in immigration matter.

Travel Required
Occasional travel – You may be expected to travel for this position.Supervisory status
Yes

Promotion Potential
00

Job family (Series)
0905 Attorney

Requirements
Help Help
Requirements
Conditions of Employment

You must be a U.S. Citizen or National.

You must complete a background investigation, credit check, and drug test.

Selective Service Registration is required, as applicable.

May be required to file a Financial Disclosure.

Salary payments must be by direct deposit to a financial institution.

Probationary period: For those entering the SES career service for the first time are subject to a one-year probationary period.

Managerial qualifications of those not a current or former SES employee must be approved by OPM before appointment.

Those who completed the Candidate Development Program (CDP) and have ECQ’s certified by OPM must provide a copy with the application.

Applicants must meet all qualifications and eligibility requirements by the closing date of the announcement.

Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Deputy Director position, you must meet the following minimum qualifications:

Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B. or a J.D. degree.

-AND-

Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of a U.S. state, territory, Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia (include the MM/YY date of your admission to the bar).

-AND-

Experience: Applicants must be U.S. citizens and must have practiced as an attorney, post-bar admission, for a minimum of seven (7) years at the time the application is submitted with at least 1 year of experience at a level equivalent to the GS-15 in the Federal service.(Your resume must CLEARLY demonstrate this experience)

Applicants must meet all qualifications and eligibility requirements by the closing date of the announcement.

IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE. If your resume does not support your questionnaire answers, we will not allow credit for your response(s).

For more information on the qualifications for this position, click here.

Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs):

ECQ 1- LEADING CHANGE. This core qualification involves the ability to bring about strategic change, both within and outside the organization, to meet organizational goals. Inherent to this ECQ is the ability to establish an organizational vision and to implement it in a continuously changing environment.

Leadership Competencies: Creativity & Innovation, External Awareness, Flexibility, Resilience, Strategic Thinking, Vision

ECQ 2- LEADING PEOPLE. This core qualification involves the ability to lead people toward meeting the organization’s vision, mission, and goals. Inherent to this ECQ is the ability to provide an inclusive workplace that fosters the development of others, facilitates cooperation and teamwork, and supports constructive resolution of conflicts.

Leadership Competencies: Conflict Management, Leveraging Diversity, Developing Others, Team Building

ECQ 3 – RESULTS DRIVEN. This core qualification involves the ability to meet organizational goals and customer expectations. Inherent to this ECQ is the ability to make decisions that produce high-quality results by applying technical knowledge, analyzing problems, and calculating risks.

Leadership Competencies: Accountability, Customer Service, Decisiveness, Entrepreneurship, Problem Solving, Technical Credibility.

ECQ 4- BUSINESS ACUMEN. This core qualification involves the ability to manage human, financial, and information resources strategically.

Leadership Competencies: Financial Management, Human Capital Management, Technology Management

ECQ 5- BUILDING COALITIONS. This core qualification involves the ability to build coalitions internally and with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, nonprofit and private sector organizations, foreign governments, or international organizations to achieve common goals.

Leadership Competencies: Partnering, Political Savvy,Influencing/Negotiating

Mandatory Technical Qualification Requirements:

In addition to the ECQs above, qualified candidates must possess the following technical qualifications. Possession of these technical qualifications must be clearly documented in your application package and should be addressed separately.

1. Ability to interpret cases, statues and administrative regulations and apply them to an organizations mission.

2. Comprehensive knowledge of immigration law and procedure, with particular expertise in administrative and Judicial case law and regulations.

3. Ability to draft regulations to implement Department and agency policy and statutory requirements.

4. Ability to represent an organization in administration hearings and proceedings.

5. Demonstrated decision-making, problem- solving, and legal writing skills.

6. Ability to create a customer-service driven organization.EducationAdditional information
Conditions of Employment: Only U.S. Citizens or Nationals are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Dual citizens of the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ applicants, both U.S. citizens and non-citizens, whose job location is with the U.S., must meet the residency requirement. For a total of three (not necessarily consecutive years) of the five years immediately prior to applying for a position, the applicant must have: 1) resided in the U.S., 2) worked for the U.S. overseas in a Federal or military capacity; or 3) been a dependent of a Federal or military employee serving oversees.

NOTE: Veteran’s preference does not apply to this position. 5 USC 2108(3), which defines “preference eligible”, indicates this does not include applicants for, or members of, the Senior Executive Service.

If you are unable to apply online or need to fax a document you do not have in electronic form, view the following link for information regarding an Alternate Application.Read moreHow You Will Be Evaluated
You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above.
Once the application process is complete, a review of your resume and supporting documentation will be made and compared against your responses to the assessment questionnaire to determine if you are qualified for this job.

In order to be rated as meeting the minimum qualifications, we must be able to determine from your application package that you have the education and/or specialized or general experience that is required.

Applicants who have qualifying experience performed on less than a full-time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.Read more
Background checks and security clearance
Security clearance
Top Secret Drug test required
Yes

Required Documents
Help Help
Required Documents
To apply for this position, you must provide a complete Application Package by the closing date of this announcement, which includes:

1. Your Resume showing relevant experience; cover letter optional

2. A complete Assessment Questionnaire

3. For those attempting to enter the SES career service for the first time, you must submit mandatory statements to address the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQ).

4. All applicants are required to submit the Mandatory Technical Qualifications (MTQ).

5. Current or former SES must submit SF-50 and/or SES certificate to show current or prior service.

Note: Please ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, employment information such as: Employer name and location; From and to dates (or from date to present for current position), which include the month and year MM/YY for each description of experience, with grade level held, if applicable, education, training etc. Qualifying experience performed on less than a full-time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
If you are relying on your education to meet qualification requirements:
Education must be accredited by an accrediting institution recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in order for it to be credited towards qualifications. Therefore, provide only the attendance and/or degrees from schools accredited by accrediting institutions recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.
Failure to provide all of the required information as stated in this vacancy announcement may result in an ineligible rating or may affect the overall rating.

Benefits
Help Help
Benefits
A career with the U.S. Government provides employees with a comprehensive benefits package. As a federal employee, you and your family will have access to a range of benefits that are designed to make your federal career very rewarding. Learn more about federal benefits.Review our benefits
Eligibility for benefits depends on the type of position you hold and whether your position is full-time, part-time, or intermittent. Contact the hiring agency for more information on the specific benefits offered.

How to Apply
Help Help
How to Apply
You must submit a complete application package by 11:59 PM (EST) on the closing date of the announcement.

* To begin, click Apply Online to create a USAJOBS account or log in to your existing account. Follow the prompts to select your USAJOBS resume and/or other supporting documents and complete the occupational questionnaire, which can be previewed here: https://apply.usastaffing.gov/ViewQuestionnaire/10830644.

* Click the Submit My Answers button to submit your application package.

* It is your responsibility to ensure your responses and appropriate documentation is submitted prior to the closing date.

* To verify your application is complete, log into your USAJOBS account, select the Application Status link and then select the more information link for this position. The Details page will display the status of your application, the documentation received and processed, and any correspondence the agency has sent related to this application. Your uploaded documents may take several hours to clear the virus scan process.

* To return to an incomplete application, log into your USAJOBS account and click Update Application in the vacancy announcement. You must re-select your resume and/or other documents from your USAJOBS account or your application will be incomplete.Read more
Agency contact information
Allison Smith Allison Smith
Phone
(816) 426-5706
Email
allison.smith@opm.govAddress

Office of the Director

5107 Leesburg Pike, Ste. 2300

Falls Church, VA 22041

USLearn more about this agencyNext steps
You will be notified of your application status during the hiring process, as applicable. You may check your application status by accessing the USAJOBS website and clicking “Application Status”. The process may take up to 6 weeks.

The four points of notification are:

Application Received or Application Incomplete

Minimum Qualification Requirement Met/Not Met

Eligible (Application Referred) or Eligible (Application Not referred)

Selected or Not Selected

If your name is referred to the hiring official, you may be contacted directly by that office for a possible interview.Read more

Fair & Transparent
Fair & Transparent
The Federal hiring process is setup to be fair and transparent. Please read the following guidance.
Equal Employment Opportunity Policy
The United States Government does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, retaliation, parental status, military service, or other non-merit factor.

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) for federal employees & job applicants

Read more
Reasonable Accommodation Policy
Federal agencies must provide reasonable accommodation to applicants with disabilities where appropriate. Applicants requiring reasonable accommodation for any part of the application process should follow the instructions in the job opportunity announcement. For any part of the remaining hiring process, applicants should contact the hiring agency directly. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
A reasonable accommodation is any change to a job, the work environment, or the way things are usually done that enables an individual with a disability to apply for a job, perform job duties or receive equal access to job benefits.
Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, federal agencies must provide reasonable accommodations when:

An applicant with a disability needs an accommodation to have an equal opportunity to apply for a job.

An employee with a disability needs an accommodation to perform the essential job duties or to gain access to the workplace.

An employee with a disability needs an accommodation to receive equal access to benefits, such as details, training, and office-sponsored events.

You can request a reasonable accommodation at any time during the application or hiring process or while on the job. Requests are considered on a case-by-case basis.
Learn more about disability employment and reasonable accommodations or how to contact an agency.Read more

****************************

According to insiders, this is the fourth or fifth attempt by the current regime to fill what normally would be a “highly desirable” career Senior Executive position. But, in the kakistocracy, it’s likely to be a “career ender.”

My advice: make sure you have paid up liability insurance and “alternate career plans” if you apply. A good “White Collar Crime” lawyer on retainer wouldn’t be a bad idea either.

PWS

06-05-20

🏴‍☠️“BIZARRO COURTS” — THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO ALL PERSONS IN THE U.S., YET ICE & THEIR “PARTNERS” AT EOIR HAVE ESTABLISHED A CONSTITUTION-FREE “COURT SYSTEM” THAT OPERATES BEYOND THE LAW & MORALITY IN A LEGAL NEVER-NEVER LAND 🧚‍♂️ — How Do They Get Away With It Under The Noses Of Congress & Article III Courts? — An Outrageous Story of Gross 🤮 Institutional & Personal Failures & Ethical Lapses Across All Three Branches of Our Federal Government ☠️👎🏻!

Paul Moses and Tim Healy report for The Daily Beast:

‘The Bizarro-World’ Immigration Courts Where the Constitution Isn’t Applied Detainees can be held for weeks or months before seeing a judge. The Justice Department gave “the word of the agency under penalty of perjury” that it would fix that—but only in NY

·         ICE officials acknowledged that they couldn’t handle the volume of arrests their own agents made; the major clog was in getting a legal review from the agency’s understaffed legal unit.

·         In 11 of the 55 venues that heard more than 500 cases last year, detainees spent six weeks or more in jail before an initial hearing. Such long waits would be unconstitutional in criminal cases; the right to due process requires authorities to not only get a case filed but also to provide an arraignment promptly, generally in no more than 48 hours.

·         Among the 55 venues that handled 500 or more detainee cases last year, the longest waits from arrest to initial hearing were in hearing locations at privately run lockups under contract with ICE: Winn Correctional Center in Winnifield, Louisiana, a median of 140 days; T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas, 72 days; Richwood Correctional Center in Richwood, Louisiana, 64 days…

**********************

Ironically, by his own overt corruption and open disdain for our Constitution and the rule of law, Trump has exposed the deep flaws, grotesque derelictions of duty, and unethical complicity throughout our Constitutional institutions that are supposed to protect all of us, particularly the most vulnerable among us like civil immigration detainees and asylum seekers, from abuses by would-be authoritarian tyrants like Trump!

Here’s a gem:

“The larger question behind this mass of numbers is why DHS is detaining so many people when both its legal office and the court lack the staffing—not only judges but support staff as well—to handle them.

‘I would just say, they are the prosecuting agency and in this context, they have complete control over the timeline,’ said Aaron Hall, an immigration lawyer who practices at the court in Aurora, Colorado, which has had substantial delays. ‘If the charging document isn’t ready to go, why are they arresting them?’”

Good question! But don’t expect a straight answer from the “malicious incompetents” at DHS. Nor will today get anything except misleading nonsense from their “partners” at EOIR (“ICE Jr.”).

DOJ was forewarned of this disaster by an independent consultant back in 2017. But, rather than solving the problem, then AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions intentionally made things even worse at EOIR. You might remember “Gonzo” as the “mastermind” behind the regime’s unconstitutional child separation policy. His victims were returned to abuse, scarred for life, or imprisoned for the “crime” of asserting their Constitutional and legal rights to fair treatment.

All of this is wrong, plain and simple! It’s part of “Dred Scotiffication” — now playing out across our nation in many ways. Finally, the systematic “dehumanization of the other” as aided, abetted, and actually encouraged by a majority of the Supremes, is getting some much-needed and long overdue “pushback.”

But the abuses of our Constitution and our values, and the unaccountability of corrupt public officials, present and former, of the Trump immigration kakistocracy, won’t cease until we get “regime change.” That requires substantial personnel and attitude changes across all three branches of our reeling Federal Government! And that definitely includes accountability for those who have failed to insure “equal justice for all” and instead permitted and sometimes aided and abetted the existence of “Constitution-Free Zones” right under their noses!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Officials & Institutions, Never!

PWS

6-04-20

ROUND TABLE STRIKES ANOTHER BLOW IN SUPPORT OF JUSTICE⚔️🛡: Immigration Detainees Have a Right to Due Process in Bond Hearings — PADILLA RAUDALES V. DECKER, 2D CIR.

CHRISTOPHER T. CASAMASSIMA
Partner
Wilmer Hale
Los Angeles

SOUVIK SAHA
Counsel
Wilmer Hale
Washington, D.C.

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Amici curiae have served as Immigration Judges and as members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Amici are invested in the resolution of this case because they have dedicated their careers to improving tghe fairness and

2

efficiency of the U.S. immigration system. Through their centuries-long collective experience, amici have adjudicated hundreds—if not thousands—of immigration detention hearings. Amici have substantial knowledge of immigration detention issues, including the practical impact of the burden of proof in such hearings.

INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT SUMMARY

Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person” shall “be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This liberty is so fundamental that the law tolerates its restraint only in limited circumstances.

1

Amici are invested in the resolution of

2

efficiency of the U.S. immigration system. Through their centuries-long collective experience, amici have adjudicated hundreds—if not thousands—of immigration detention hearings. Amici have substantial knowledge of immigration detention issues, including the practical impact of the burden of proof in such hearings.

INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT SUMMARY

Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person” shall “be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. The “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This liberty is so fundamental that the law tolerates its restraint only in limited circumstances.

1

Amici are invested in the resolution of this case because they have dedicated their careers to improving the fairness and

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).

Amici have filed substantially similar briefs in other cases involving burden of proof issues in proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, no party or party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor contributed money to preparing or submitting this brief. Only amici or their counsel contributed money to prepare or submit this brief. The parties have consented to the filing of this brief.

2

A complete list of amici is included in this brief’s addendum.

Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page13 of 56

Such restraint violates the Due Process Clause “unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, or, in certain special and narrow nonpunitive circumstances, where a special justification, such as harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. Yet, federal law provides far greater protections to criminal defendants than it does to noncitizens in civil proceedings—even though the distinctions between criminal and non-criminal proceedings mean very little to a person sitting behind bars.

Accordingly, noncitizens already face significant hurdles in detention proceedings brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). At issue in this appeal is whether another, even higher and more fundamental, barrier to due process can be erected in this Circuit: do noncitizens bear the burden of justifying their freedom from detention? For noncitizens, the answer to this question is no mere technicality—it can mean the difference between freedom and confinement. This burden’s allocation, therefore, “reflects the value society places on individual liberty.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979).

Given their collective experience in adjudicating immigration bond hearings, amici are particularly well-suited to address the monumental question in this case. To that end, amici wish to share the following observations for this Court’s benefit:

-2-

Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page14 of 56

First, noncitizens already enjoy fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. We contrast the procedural rules for detaining criminal defendants and noncitizens to underscore the challenges that noncitizens face in immigration bond hearings, and to highlight the need for a presumption against detention as one of the last remaining bulwarks to protect noncitizens’ liberty.

Second, detention of noncitizens consumes the government’s already- limited administrative and judicial resources. Amici highlight the staggering costs that are associated with immigration detention, as well as the strain on immigration courts resulting from the unnecessary detention of noncitizens.

Third, contrary to the government’s position, placing the burden of proof on the government would not generate fiscal or administrative hardship. Amici advance that position with confidence because the government previously shouldered that exact burden over a fifteen-year period. Several of the amici served as Immigration Judges within that period and found that this older system did not cause additional costs or administrative hurdles.

Fourth, in amici’s experience, detaining noncitizens actually increases the burden on the immigration court system. While in detention, noncitizens face significant challenges in adequately preparing their cases. Further, the Executive Branch now utilizes “performance metrics” to encourage Immigration Judges to accelerate the fact-finding process in detention proceedings. With less time for

-3-

Case 19-3220, Document 116, 06/03/2020, 2854056, Page15 of 56

individualized fact-finding, noncitizens will have even less opportunity to marshal the facts needed to satisfy the burden to avoid detention. Reallocating the burden of proof in immigration bond hearings, therefore, would reduce costs.

Fifth, and finally, amici offer alternatives to noncitizen detention that would inject much-needed resources to the immigration court system. The government’s aversion to such alternatives rest on a single statistic suggesting that the vast majority of noncitizens abscond upon release on bond. That statistic, however, is misleading and inconsistent with other available data, and bears little resemblance to the reality that amici encountered in years of adjudicating immigration cases.

Together, these observations should lead this Court to conclude that due process requires the government to make some sort of individualized showing before it may place noncitizens under lock and key.

. . . .

Read the full brief here: AS FILED No. 19-3220 Amici Br. Padilla Raudales v. Decker (2d Cir.)

*****************************

Thanks again not only to the signatory members of our Round Table, but especially to CHRISTOPHER T. CASAMASSIMA, SOUVIK SAHA, and the other members of their pro bono team over at WILMER HALE. Without assistance like yours, the “Voices of the Round Table” would not be heard in support of justice in so many cases throughout our nation!

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

06-04-20

KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: FRAUD, WASTE, & ABUSE UNDER THE EOIR BIG TOP 🤡🎪🤹‍♂️ — TRAC DECLARES EOIR’S BOGUS STATISTICS TO BE NATIONAL DISASTER! ☠️— “The EOIR’s apparent reckless deletion of potentially irretrievable court records raises urgent concerns that without immediate intervention the agency’s sloppy data management practices could undermine its ability to manage itself, thwart external efforts at oversight, and leave the public in the dark about essential government activities.”🤮 — WHERE’S THE OVERSIGHT? WHERE’S THE ACCOUNTABILITY?

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/611/

EOIR’s Data Release on Asylum So Deficient Public Should Not Rely on Accuracy of Court Records

TRAC has concluded that the data updated through April 2020 it has just received on asylum and other applications for relief to the Immigration Courts are too unreliable to be meaningful or to warrant publication. We are therefore discontinuing updating our popular Immigration Court Asylum Decisions app, and will take other steps to highlight this problem[1]. We also wish to alert the public that any statistics EOIR has recently published on this topic may be equally suspect, as will be any future reports the agency publishes until these major data deficiencies are explained and rectified[2].

The EOIR’s apparent reckless deletion of potentially irretrievable court records raises urgent concerns that without immediate intervention the agency’s sloppy data management practices could undermine its ability to manage itself, thwart external efforts at oversight, and leave the public in the dark about essential government activities. Left unaddressed, the number of deleted records will compound each month and could trigger an expensive data crisis at the agency. And here the missing records are the actual applications for asylum, and how the court is handling them. This is a subject on which there is widespread public interest and concern.

EOIR Data Irregularities Approaching Point of No Return

Despite TRAC’s appeals to the EOIR, Immigration Court records continue to disappear each month. TRAC initially reported 1,507 missing applications for relief in our October 2019 report, which grew to 3,799 missing applications the following month. We wrote EOIR Director James McHenry providing a copy of the 1,507 missing applications asking for answers on why these records were missing from their files. We wrote again when the number of missing applications more than doubled the following month. These letters were met with silence. Not only have these cases disappeared entirely, they have not been restored in any subsequent data releases and the number of missing relief applications continue to grow. (See the final section for a short explanation of TRAC’s methodology.)

Alarmingly, the number of relief applications that were present in the March 2020 data release but were missing in the April release jumped to 68,282. This is just the number of records that disappeared over a single month. It does not include the ever growing number of applications that had previously disappeared month-by-month. As was true in past months, roughly four out of five of the records in the March 2020 release that disappeared from April’s release concerned applications on which the court had rendered its decision, including many cases in which the immigration judge had granted asylum as well as other forms of relief.

To put that into perspective, the number of missing cases just last month is more than the 63,734 asylum applications received by the Immigration Courts during all of FY 2015. If these applications are missing because they have been deleted from the Court’s own master files, the magnitude of the task of restoring just this single month’s destruction—assuming this is even possible—is enormous. To go back and restore the cumulative number of relief applications that went missing during previous months will obviously be even greater.

In fact, so many asylum decisions were dropped from EOIR’s April release that the cumulative number of asylum decisions went down, not up, despite asylum decisions continuing to be made. The volume of disappearing records has reached a scale that little faith can be placed in the factual accuracy of reports published by the EOIR based on its data.

The EOIR’s escalating data problems should raise dire concerns for Congress, policymakers and the public who routinely put their faith in federal agencies to provide complete and accurate information about their work. Indeed, the management of the court system itself, including the quota system recently imposed on immigration judges, presupposes the accuracy of the court’s own records. It is deeply worrisome that the EOIR and the Department of Justice appear unconcerned with ensuring that their own records are accurate and uncommitted to providing the public with accurate and reliable data about the Court’s operations.

TRAC Urges EOIR to Take Immediate Action

To date, the EOIR has not responded to TRAC’s requests for an explanation of these disappearances, nor has the EOIR responded to TRAC’s FOIA requests for records that would shed light on this matter.

Therefore, TRAC has written a third letter to Director McHenry reporting our findings of 68,282 new disappearances and we are again seeking a commitment from him to take the steps needed to address the problem. More urgently, we are asking that the EOIR immediately preserve—rather than destroy—all back-up tapes or other media in the hopes that records apparently improperly deleted from the Court’s master files might be restored. We assured Director McHenry that we would be more than happy to work cooperatively with the agency to help them better ensure that going forward the public is provided with more accurate and reliable data about the Immigration Court’s operations.

How EOIR’s Data Mismanagement Impacts TRAC’s Immigration Court Tools

TRAC’s mission is to provide the public with accurate, reliable, unbiased, and timely data on the operations of the federal government, and to ensure that the public is informed about changes that impact our data.

The EOIR’s disappearing records fall under the data related to applications for relief. The record on the existence of the court case itself is present, but for a growing number of these cases there now is no record that the immigrant ever applied for relief, or the court’s decision on that application. One of the key moments in the life of the case—including applications for asylum—is missing entirely. As a direct consequence TRAC does not have the information needed to provide reliable or meaningful updates on the court’s handling of applications for asylum and must therefore discontinue updating its asylum decision app.

While each of the other files in EOIR’s monthly data releases also have the same problem of records disappearing, the magnitude of these disappearances has not reached the levels seen with applications for relief. While still worrisome, these levels have not yet climbed to where we believe we can no longer use the information we receive. Thus, we are continuing to update the rest of our other Immigration Court apps. We continue to closely monitor the situation, while we urge EOIR to explain why records keep disappearing. We further continue to ask the agency to take the steps needed to rectify the situation.

TRAC will continue to retain all previous and future EOIR data shipments for research purposes.

How did TRAC Identify the EOIR’s Data Irregularities?

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) oversees the nationwide Immigration Court system, including more than 60 physical Immigration Court locations (as well as many more remote hearing locations including teleconference sites and ad hoc “tent” courts), hundreds of Immigration Judges, and millions of immigration cases that pass through the court system. The EOIR records information on each case and tracks various proceedings, filings, hearings and other aspects of each case in a large database. This database is central to the Court’s ability to manage its workload, prepare and publish reports for the public, and respond to queries from Congress about its operations. It is also used in implementing new practices, including the recent decision to impose new evaluation criteria for Immigration Judges.

As a result of TRAC’s ongoing FOIA requests, the EOIR releases a large batch of anonymized Immigration Court data each month that provides a snapshot of a great deal of the information recorded in this database on the handling of each case. In short, TRAC does not create data on the EOIR; rather, TRAC’s uses the EOIR’s own data. This data is the foundation for TRAC’s Immigration Court data tools which help ensure transparency and accountability for the American public.

TRAC used this data to precisely identify deleted records. While the information TRAC receives does not identify individuals, EOIR’s computer system assigns a unique computer sequence number to each case that identifies it. Because TRAC receives comprehensive data shipments from the EOIR each month that include these unique computer-assigned tracking numbers, TRAC can match each record received in the previous month with the same corresponding record in the following month’s release. Each release is also cumulative. That means it should include every record from the previous month plus every new record that has been added to the database over the course of the current month. As a rule, records should therefore never disappear[3].

When a record that was present is not included in the next month’s release, TRAC refers to these as missing or disappearing records. Because humans maintain most databases including EOIR’s, mistakes will occur. Therefore no database is ever perfect. So a few disappearing records might be expected. However, as is the situation here, concern is warranted whenever significant numbers of records disappear. Indeed, alarm bells should ring as the number of disappearing records grow. This situation means the data can no longer be trusted to reliably track the court’s proceedings.

Footnotes

[1] EOIR monthly releases consist of a series of tables covering different aspects of its workload. While each of these tables continue to have disappearing records each month, the magnitude of these missing records varies by table. For example, in the table that tracks each case before the court there were 228 cases present in March that disappeared from the April release, compared with 41,233 new cases that were added. While the problem of disappearing case records remains very troubling for the case table along with each of the other EOIR tables, TRAC believes that their magnitudes do not rise to the same level as the problem for applications for relief where the data now are so unreliable and misleading that they do not warrant the public placing any trust in them. At this time, we therefore are continuing to update our other Immigration Court apps while alerting the public to this continuing serious problem that affects the reliability of EOIR data releases more generally.

[2] For an example of a recent EOIR publication that may contain significant data errors, see the graph and table reporting total asylum applications through March 2020, which was generated using data from April 2020: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1106366/download.

[3] Even when a data entry error is made, the database has special codes to indicate that a record should be disregarded because it was a data entry error so that rarely is it necessary to actually delete records.

TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.

. . . .

**************

Read the rest of TRAC’s report at the link.

EOIR isn’t willing and able to do its only function: provide fair, impartial, and timely adjudications to asylum seekers and other migrants while following best judicial practices.

But they do have time to waste taxpayers’ money on nonsense like the chart at this link: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1217001/download. This was obviously designed to further the Trump regime’s false narrative regarding the merits of asylum claims. While the chart is largely incomprehensible, misleading nonsense, what stands out is this:

At the end of an abusive process during which the law has been illegally skewed against asylum seekers and “judges,” most of whom are not experts in asylum law and who have never even represented an asylum seeker, are encouraged to deny meritorious claims for protection, against the odds, over 25% (12 of 47) of those who actually get through this biased dysfunctional mess still get asylum!

It’s reasonable to believe that under a fair system, with impartial decision makers who have expertise in asylum law, and without the interference of biased, overtly anti-asylum politicos like Sessions and Barr, asylum seekers would succeed the majority of the time, as they did before efforts by both the Obama and Trump Administrations to “ratchet down” asylum grants so that the EOIR system would serve DHS Enforcement as a “deterrent” to those seeking protection.

Obviously, the DOJ is afraid that under a fair, independent judicial system that actually employed judges who were experts in asylum law and who had real life experience representing asylum applicants, the majority of claims would be granted, thereby exposing the fraud, dishonesty, and misconduct involved in the present anti-asylum system.

It’s a national disgrace that is actually harming and sometimes killing those deserving of protection under our law.

Due Process Forever! Dishonest, Unethical, Incompetent, and Intentionally Biased “Courts” Never!

PWS

06-04-20

FINALLY, MATTIS SPEAKS OUT, RIPS TRUMP’S DISGRACEFUL REIGN: “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.”

https://www.axios.com/james-mattis-trump-protests-f325f239-17f1-4795-b6a4-0ab1587ad210.html?stream=top&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts_all

Orion Rummler reports for AXIOS:

Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis condemned President Trump for making a “mockery of our Constitution” in a statement to The Atlantic on Wednesday, saying he was “appalled” at the president’s response to mass protests in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

Why it matters: Trump’s former defense secretary had refrained from publicly criticizing his former boss since resigning in 2018.

Full statement:

“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.”

***********************

Better late than never. But, what if Mattis had spoken out earlier and helped lead the opposition to Trump. Would things be different now? Where was his leadership when the GOP was ignoring the evidence and failing to vote to convict and remove Trump for clear abuse of his office?

PWS

06-04-20

GREAT 👍🏼 NEWS IN DIFFICULT TIMES: THANKS IOWA! — Vile White Supremacist Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Defeated in GOP Primary!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-rep-steve-king-loses-his-iowa-primary-11591157600?emailToken=92379459485ce6d394ff609e4a1e650b5Nbcn9B6kp27b+RJDBSpEvek123RwFfHo2RJK9zWX1CNzY78xZsArP4fILyl8kziMlDrQMcOKv9HhbsTI3GOC0ugwz8YzsaL35M4ip7fEsU%3D&reflink=article_email_share

Siobhan Hughes reports for the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa), who was stripped of committee assignments last year for questioning what was wrong with white supremacy in the U.S., lost his bid for a 10th term after Republicans abandoned his campaign and endorsed a primary challenger.

Randy Feenstra, a state legislator, had 45.8% of the vote with 36 of 39 counties reporting, according to Iowa’s secretary of state. He was positioned to win a five-way primary, the Associated Press projected, and easily clear a 35% threshold that under state law allows him to avoid a state convention choosing the nominee. Mr. Feenstra will compete against Democrat J.D. Scholten, a former professional baseball player who also tried to win the seat in 2018.

Mr. King, whose district is home to giant meat-processing facilities with a large immigrant workforce, has a history of criticizing immigrants.

In 2013, Mr. King, the only Iowa Republican in the House, compared Hispanic immigrants to drug mules, saying that “for every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that, they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” That triggered a rebuke from then-House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), who said that “what he said does not reflect the values of the American people or the Republican Party.”

. . . .

*********************

Read the rest of Siobhan’s article at the link.

Probably the best news of the week.

In 21 years on the immigration bench, at both the trial and appellate levels, I saw first-hand the amazing, essential, and largely unheralded contributions of immigrants (both documented and undocumented) to our society, at all levels. King’s racist rhetoric was so outrageously and demonstrably unfair and untrue!

As the essential workers who have basically kept America afloat during the pandemic, many at risk of their own health and safety, have shown, it is long past time for us to “lose” the Trump/Miller White Nationalist nonsense, stop caging kids and returning asylum seekers to danger, and integrate the millions of law abiding undocumented residents into our society. The “Dred Scottification of the other” by Trump, which has been disgracefully enabled by a tone-deaf Supreme Court and feckless Congress, needs to end! Removal of King is a small, but significant, step.

Thanks again to Siobhan for giving this story the clear and timely reporting it deserves.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-03-20

RELIGION & POLITICS: TRUMP IS A GROTESQUE INSULT TO CHRISTIANITY — Christ Died For Others’ Sins; Trump Too Cowardly, Corrupt, & Insecure to Take Responsibility For Own Screw Ups!🤮

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opinion/trump-bible-speech-st-johns-church.html

Elizabeth Bruenig writes in The NY Times:

Late Monday afternoon, President Trump emerged from the White House and strode in the cool spring daylight to St. John’s Church in Lafayette Square. It was supposed to be an act of defiance: Mr. Trump has bristled at the observation that during the protests roiling the capital he has burrowed into a fortified bunker rather than addressing the nation.

Like most performances arranged by Mr. Trump and associates, it made only a disjointed sort of sense. Yes, the president’s decision to march through the heart of the city’s unrest caused police and National Guard units to blast a peaceful crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets, carving a punishing path to the steps of St. John’s. But the show of force seemed to emphasize only that his legitimacy has shrunk to the point that he feels moved to dominate his own people with military power.

As he took up his post before the church, which was partially boarded up after a minor fire that broke out during a recent protest, Mr. Trump set his face in a stony scowl and held up a black Bible, tightly closed. “Is it your Bible?” a reporter shouted. “It’s a Bible,” Mr. Trump said neutrally. The entire routine was vulgar, blunt: There Mr. Trump was, holding aloft this mute book — neither opened, cited, nor read from — in the shadow of a vandalized church, claiming the mantle of righteousness.

After all, that was what he had come to do. A ruler maintaining order strictly by brute force has a problem. Such regimes are volatile and fragile, subject to eruptive dissolution. Mr. Trump may lack the experience or interest to even pantomime genuine Christian practice, but he has acute instincts when it comes to the symbolism of leadership. He seemed to know, as he positioned himself as the defender of the Christian faith, that he needed to imbue his presidency with some renewed moral purpose; Christianity was simply a convenient vein to tap.

“I think that’s a standard trope in American political frames of reference,” Luke Bretherton told me on a Monday night phone call. Mr. Bretherton, who is a professor of moral and political theology at Duke University’s Divinity School, cited Cold War efforts to demonize socialism as viciously atheistic and amoral. It was work undertaken with anxious eagerness precisely because socialist criticisms of American life were substantial and compelling.

. . . .

************

Read the rest of Liz’s op-ed at the link.

Christ’s humanity, forgiveness, and empathy for the outcasts of the world is completely lost on the totally immoral and willfully ignorant Trump. The Bible is just another prop. If Jesus came back to earth today, he certainly would be found with the protestors seeking social justice rather than the current inhabitant of the White House and his equally corrupt and immoral cronies like Billy Barr.

PWS

06-03-20

UPDATE:

Check out Tom Toles’s cartoon “Sermon From the Pit” (“Vengeance is Mine Sayeth the Lowered”) from today’s WashPost here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/02/trump-does-photo-op-show-just-how-low-he-can-go/

Just when you think Trump has hit the rock bottom, he takes it to an even lower level!

PWS

06-03-20

SUPREME FAILURE: HOW THE SUPREMES ENABLED STEPHEN MILLER’S RACIST ATTACK ON VULNERABLE IMMIGRANTS AND AMERICANS’ HEALTH, AT THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME – America Needs & Deserves Better From Our Life-Tenured Justices! – This Isn’t Rocket 🚀 Science — The Illegality and Immorality Are Clear – What’s Disturbingly Missing Is The Courage & Will to Stand Up To Trump, Miller, and Other Members of The Regime Who Are Running Roughshod Over Our Justice System & Our National Values 🏴‍☠️!

https://apple.news/A7DwtaicORlSZg-2eIijU5g

Jeremy Raff reports for The Atlantic:

On a Friday afternoon in mid-April, Gladys Vega received a disturbing message: A woman hospitalized with COVID-19 needed food for the 11-year-old daughter she’d left at home. Worried that the girl would go hungry, Vega rushed out of her office and into the tangle of downtown Chelsea, Massachusetts, a 1.8-square-mile city across the Mystic River from Boston. The 52-year-old Vega, wearing a black tracksuit, a highlighter-yellow T-shirt, and a little bit of matching eye glitter, jumped out of the car so quickly, I could barely keep up. She approached a narrow brick apartment building and asked the people on the stoop to open the front door. “You don’t have to worry; I’m not immigration,” Vega said in Spanish. “Let me in.”

Vega was accustomed to convincing fearful Chelsea residents to trust her. More and more restrictive federal immigration measures had motivated some locals—day laborers, food-factory workers, janitors, and other employees now deemed “essential”—to leave as few traces of their presence as possible: using P.O. boxes instead of their own mailboxes at home, and steering clear of public buildings where Immigration and Customs Enforcement had made arrests.

In late February, new Trump-administration regulations took effect that radically expand whom immigration officials judge to be a “public charge”—permanently dependent on government aid—and thus ineligible for a green card. The rules allow officials to deny green-card applicants if they have used food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, or other safety-net programs that were previously exempt from consideration.

Vega, the executive director of a social-justice organization called the Chelsea Collaborative, believes that these measures have made it more difficult for immigrants to get the care and support they need to stop the spread of COVID-19. Out of fear of triggering the new public-charge rule, immigrants in Chelsea have been disenrolling from public services, worsening the overcrowding, food insecurity, and poor access to health care that make the area so vulnerable to the coronavirus.

By mid-April, the infection rate in Chelsea was six times higher than the state average, comparable to the rate in the hardest-hit boroughs of New York City. With the support of local officials, Vega is trying to use the credibility she’s earned over decades of fighting slumlords, predatory bosses, and scammers to persuade the hardest-hit families to use a makeshift social safety net—and to go to the hospital despite their fear that doing so will be weaponized against them later.

“Because they’re afraid of their status,” Vega said, “they will not speak up.”

The message about the girl in need of food, Vega learned, was outdated: Her mother had returned home earlier that day, after spending a week in the hospital. Still wheezing, the woman stood in the doorway wearing pajama pants, a gray overcoat, and a surgical mask. She told me she had deferred care for two weeks, and went to the hospital only when she could no longer breathe. Vega had prepared a box of bread, corn flour, beans, cookies, cooking oil, and milk. “God bless you,” the woman said. One floor below, several families who appeared sick were crammed into a handful of rooms. Vega gave them a box too.

Forty-two years ago, in the midst of the blizzard of 1978, Vega’s parents moved her from a farm in Puerto Rico to their own cramped apartment in Chelsea. The city, the climate, the language—it was “a nightmare,” she told me.

Her cousins in town spoke only English, so she became close with the other Spanish-speaking kids in school—mostly children who had fled the Central American civil wars of the 1980s with their families. Vega came to understand that her classmates didn’t see parents or relatives left behind for years at a time, because of immigration restrictions. “My passion for organizing came from those classrooms,” she said. By seventh grade, Vega was protesting cuts to bilingual education with a 700-student walkout she’d organized.

The newly formed Chelsea Collaborative hired her as a receptionist in 1990, when she was 21. From the beginning, she was a troublemaker. “I liked to challenge the status quo,” she told me. She set about trying to “manage up,” and to persuade her boss, the executive director, to put Latinos on the board. Her playbook: She’d gently inquire about a retirement party for a current board member. Then she’d line up a replacement, drop hints about all the funding her new pick could bring in, and order a plaque for the presumptive retiree. She tried to make it effortless for her boss to take her advice. “That’s how I moved out all of these older white men,” she said with a laugh.

Vega witnessed the first major wave of immigrant disenrollment from safety-net programs when Congress passed the Clinton administration’s welfare-reform law in 1996. The legislation, along with an immigration bill passed the following month, restricted green-card holders from using some federal benefits during their first five years in the country. Vega was working as a community organizer for the Chelsea Collaborative by then, holding large meetings at the Saint Rose of Lima Catholic church, where she was connecting immigrants with employment and educational opportunities. After the new laws passed, Vega recalled, immigrants felt that “to take any public assistance, you needed to bleed for [the government] to trust you. It was similar to what is happening now in terms of public charge.”

[Read: ‘We are like sitting ducks’]

Around the same time that Vega was organizing at Saint Rose, Michael Fix, who is now a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, received a sheaf of data from public-health officials in Los Angeles County that showed just how many noncitizens used public benefits before and after the laws took effect. The impact was apparent immediately, he recalled when we spoke. “I thought, Holy hell, what’s going on here?” Immigrant participation in health services had dropped sharply even among those who technically still qualified. Refugees, for instance, were unaffected by the new rules, but their participation in Medicaid fell 39 percent.

Fix and other researchers began to study these spillover consequences, concluding that they represented a chilling effect. Even immigration authorities were worried, especially about what the chilling effect would mean for public health. “Growing confusion is creating significant, negative public health consequences across the country,” the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which granted green cards at the time, wrote in 1999. “This situation is becoming particularly acute with respect to … the treatment of communicable diseases.”

Last summer, as the Trump administration’s beefed-up version of the public-charge rule sped toward approval, doctors and social workers at Massachusetts General Hospital’s clinic in Chelsea contacted Vega because they were concerned that immigrants were avoiding health care. The chilling effect was at work again. She brought clinic representatives to a street fair at Saint Rose full of food stalls and kids playing games on a warm evening. They walked around greeting attendees. “Please come back to MGH Chelsea,” Vega recalled the providers saying. “We miss you as patients.”

The expansion of the public-charge rule, Fix told me, is best understood as a way to favor affluent immigrants without having to go through Congress—a major victory for immigration hard-liners. According to an estimate by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the new standards are so restrictive that if they were applied to everyone in the United States, up to half of all Americans could be deemed a public charge and thus not qualify to settle in the country.

The current chilling effect has not been measured. But Tiffany Joseph, a sociologist at Northeastern University who studies health access in Boston’s immigrant neighborhoods, told me, “You should not underestimate how much the fear of ICE raids and the public-charge rule worsened the pandemic in Chelsea.”

Jessica Zeidman, a primary-care doctor at MGH Chelsea, told me that she saw disenrollment continue to intensify in the months before the pandemic hit. In December, for instance, a newly pregnant patient ended a checkup with a goodbye: She told Zeidman that she wouldn’t be seeing her anymore, for fear of triggering the rule, which would go into effect two months later. Zeidman tried to persuade her not to withdraw from WIC, the federal nutrition program for women, infants, and children, because the new restrictions wouldn’t apply to pregnant women.

“Most of the patients I have that have talked about disenrolling are not even actually affected by the rule; they just think they are,” Zeidman told me. “Part of its power is [that] it affects many, many more people than it’s actually written to affect.”

Around the same time, another one of her patients, a man in his 50s, opted to remove his name from a public-housing waiting list, even though he was eligible for the benefit, because he was afraid of somehow triggering the rule and preventing other family members from obtaining green cards. As the pandemic spread, Zeidman wondered whether he was still stuck in overcrowded housing, risking infection By early April, immigrant patients showed signs of serious illness, after waiting as long as possible to seek care, Zeidman said. Almost all of them had labored breathing and a high fever.

“We’re reaping what we’ve sown,” she said.

. . . .

*************************************

Read the rest of the article at the link.

This isn’t rocket science! The irrationality, invidious motives, and danger to the public health of the Administration’s White Nationalist attack on vulnerable immigrants was obvious “from the git go.” Lower Federal Courts figured it out quickly and properly enjoined the illegal regulations change.

That’s hardly surprising given that the overwhelming majority of the 210,000 comments on the proposed change opposed it on public health and rational governance grounds, many coming from public health experts. The vile racism of Stephen Miller is also a matter of public record.

Nor is it surprising that the various “exemptions” are largely meaningless, given DHS’s and this regime’s complete and totally deserved lack of credibility in the immigrant community. It’s a commonly known fact of which any immigration practitioner or community worker would be aware, but of which members of our highest Court feign ignorance.

So, when we wonder “how we got to this point,” we can’t ignore the lack of practical understanding of human problems, absence of empathy, and the abandonment of fundamental principles of due process and equal justice for all represented by a Supremes’ majority that unleashed an illegal, ill-advised, invidiously discriminatory travesty like the “Stephen Miller’s public charge regulations” on our nation and some of our most vulnerable members of society – many of whom are actually suffering and even dying to bring us the essential goods and services that have kept us afloat during the pandemic.

A group of younger people that I work with raised these regulations with me recently. They appeared to have a very clear understanding of the adverse legal, ethical, practical, moral, and historical consequences of allowing one misguided group to inflict this type of invidious harm on another group in our society, thereby diminishing the general welfare. Pity that a majority of those serving on our highest Court lacked those same clear insights and values.

Actions and inactions have consequences. And, as we are now seeing, they can be quite ugly. A better Executive and a better Senate are keys to better Federal Courts, from the Supremes down to the Immigraton Courts. If nothing else, Trump has shown us how broken and feckless our current institutions are in the face of tyranny and “malicious incompetence.” We need regime change at all levels.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

06-02-20

THE GIBSON REPORT — 06-01-20 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

#BlackLivesMatter

Do Black Lives Matter in the immigrant rights movement?

AlJazeera (from 2017): Black migrants are being assimilated into the terror of the prison industrial complex at an alarming rate. The over-policing, over incarceration, and overt violence of the policing apparatus that is at the core of the #BlackLivesMatter movement is also an immigrant rights issue.

Victory for Liberians in the U.S.: Deferred Enforced Departure, A Pathway to Citizenship, and An Immigration Success Story

Featured June 10 event from the NYCBA with a fantastic panel:

Tsion Gurmu, Legal Director, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Founder and Director, Queer Black Immigrant Project
Amaha Kassa, Founder and Executive Director, African Communities Together
Yatta Kiazolu, a named Plaintiff in ACT et al. v. Trump et al., and a Liberian DED holder
Patrice Lawrence, Co-Director, UndocuBlack Network

COVID-19

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify the latest policies on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.

New

Non-detained courts closed for hearings through June 26, 2020 (except Hawaii)

Court closures due to civil unrest

USCIS Plans to Reopen on June 4, 2020 (but June 15 for NY to start phasing in services)

Practice Alert: ICE to Provide 520 Free Phone Minutes Per Month for Individuals Detained During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Practice Alert: COVID-19 and the Public Charge Rule

Closures

EOIR Operational Status & Standing Orders

EOIR Case Status

EOIR Updates via Twitter

ICE Updates (Including ERO and Detention)

USCIS Updates

Consular Updates

NY Courts Updates

NYC HRA

Guidance:

IJ Email Filings

BIA Email Filings

OCAHO Email Filings

EOIR Standing Orders

EOIR Electronic Signature Guidance

Quick Step-By-Step Guide on How to E-Notarize (in NY)

USCIS Announces Flexibility for Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny

USCIS’s Signature Policy Update

Confirmed Cases in Detention

NYPD Cert of Conduct Procedures

Sample Motion for Continuance Due to COVID-19

Practice Advisory: Advocating for the Release of Detained Immigrants Based on the COVID-19 Pandemic

AILA Resources

ASISTA: COVID-19 Practice Pointer: Filing Deadlines for RFEs, NOIDs, NOIRs and I-290Bs

COVID-19 Resources, Policy Changes, New Court Procedures, and Practice Area Updates.

COVID-19 emergency funding resources for undocumented and marginalized communities (Spanish)

ONA COVID-19 Flyer Now Available in Multiple Languages

Immigration Court Practices During the Declared National Emergency Concerning the COVID-19 Outbreak

NYC United Against Coronavirus – Resources and Information

COVID-19 Community Guides in SA Languages: English, Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Gujarati, Malayalam, Kannada, Punjabi, Urdu, Nepali, Burmese, Bengali, and Marathi.

Legal Aid Travel Ban FAQ in Multiple Languages

UNHCR: Key Legal Considerations on access to territory for persons in need of international protection in the context of the COVID-19 response

IDP: ICE Enforcement (Spanish)

Mayor de Blasio Announces New York City COVID-19 Immigrant Emergency Relief Program with Open Society Foundations

CGRS COVID-19 resource page

Guía maestra de recursos para inmigrantes durante la pandemia

Eligible New Yorkers Can Have Their Taxes Prepared Virtually or Use Assisted Self-Preparation

NY Unemployment Insurance Guide

Legal Aid Stimulus FAQs

Check Status of Stimulus Check (and FAQs)

Practice Pointer: Employment Verification During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Table of COVID-19 CLE Changes

Non-immigration FAQs for clients (multiple languages available)

TOP NEWS

DOJ memo offered to buy out immigration board members

Roll Call: The Justice Department offered buyouts to pre-Trump administration career members on its influential immigration appeals board as part of an ongoing effort to restructure the immigration court system.

With citizenship ceremonies postponed, hundreds of thousands could miss chance to vote in November

WaPo: Though USCIS is scheduled to begin a phased reopening next week, the agency has not committed to resuming a full slate of ceremonies nor has publicly released a plan for rescheduling the approximately 150,000 naturalizations that have been postponed because of the closures.

A US immigration agency could run out of money by the end of summer without a $1.2 billion bailout

Vox: US Citizenship and Immigration Services is facing a massive budget shortfall because fewer immigrants are applying to enter the US.

How Coronavirus Relief Is Being Distributed to Undocumented Immigrants

DocumentedNY: Private donors and independent organizations have connected to move millions of dollars in aid across a gaping hole left in the government’s COVID-19 response.

Emails Show Long Island Police Departments Worked Closely With ICE

DocumentedNY: The report, titled “When Help Is Nowhere to Be Found,” is focused on Operation Matador, which was launched by ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations department in May 2017 to combat MS-13. According to the report, Operation Matador was initially envisioned as a 90-day effort but has since become a permanent operation.

NYC Council Votes to Ban the Terms ‘Alien’ and ‘Illegal Immigrant’ on Official Docs

NBC: The NYC Council voted Thursday to ban the “dehumanizing and offensive” words in local laws, rules and documents, said Speaker Corey Johnson. The term that officials will use going forward will be “noncitizen.”

ICE Tells Parents to Separate From Their Children or Risk Indefinite Detention Together

AIC: According to recent reports from attorneys for the detained families, on May 13 and 14, ICE gave the parents a “binary choice:” agree for their child to be released without them or waive the child’s right to release under the longstanding Flores settlement that governs custody of immigrant children.

ICE Detainee Who Died Of Covid-19 Suffered Horrifying Neglect

Intercept: The men who were with Escobar Mejia in his final days say they did everything they could to alert ICE and CoreCivic, the private prison corporation that runs Otay Mesa, of his worsening condition, and that the officials responsible for his well-being failed to take those alerts seriously. See also Second man with COVID-19 dies in US immigration custody.

Mexico’s President Says Most Domestic Violence Calls Are ‘Fake’

NTY: The leader compared the requests for help to prank calls, the latest controversy over his government’s response to record levels of violence against women.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

SCOTUS Held that Courts Can Review Factual Challenges to a CAT Order

The Supreme Court found that 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of factual challenges to an order denying relief under CAT, which protects noncitizens from removal to a country where they would likely face torture. (Nasrallah v. Barr, 6/1/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060132

Federal Court Rules Trump Administration Must Provide Fair Hearings For Immigrants

CAIR: A federal court has ruled the Trump administration must provide fair hearings for people in immigration detention and requires the government to justify detention at a bond hearing. The ruling also requires immigration judges to consider people’s financial circumstances when setting bond amounts and forms of release.

CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Petitioner Where IJ and BIA Relied on Boston’s “Gang Assessment Database”

The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum, finding that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, and that the introduction of law enforcement gang database records did not violate the petitioner’s due process rights. (Diaz Ortiz v. Barr, 5/15/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052634

CA1 Finds Petitioner Pardoned by Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles Was Eligible for a Pardon Waiver

The court held that the BIA erred when it found that the pardon issued to the petitioner by the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles was not effective for purposes of establishing entitlement to a waiver of removal under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(vi). (Thompson v. Barr, 5/21/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052636

CA2 Holds Misprision of Felony is not a CIMT – Mendez v. Barr

Justia: The court held that the government failed to show that misprision rises to the level of base, vile, conscience-shocking conduct traditionally attributed to the gravest and most inherently evil offenses. Furthermore, nothing in the misprision statute suggests that the crime has, as an element, the fraudulent intent necessary for misprision to constitute a CIMT.

CA3 Holds BIA Erred in Retroactively Applying Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga to Find Petitioner Removable

The court granted the petition for review, holding that the BIA erred in retroactively applying the new standard for theft-related crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) that it had promulgated in Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga to the petitioner. (Francisco-Lopez v. Att’y Gen., 5/15/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052637

CA5 Upholds BIA’s Asylum Denial to Mexican Petitioner Whose Father Was Extorted by Zetas Drug Cartel

Finding that substantial evidence supported BIA’s denial of asylum, the court held that petitioner had failed to meet his burden to establish that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate to another part of Mexico, away from his father’s extortionists. (Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 5/12/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052638

CA6 Holds BIA Erred in Finding That Asylum-Seeking Mayan Indigenous Woman Could Reasonably Relocate Within Guatemala

The court found that the BIA’s conclusion that the government showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the Guatemalan petitioner could internally relocate and that it would be reasonable for her to do so was not supported by substantial evidence. (Juan Antonio v. Barr, 5/19/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052640

CA6 Says Withholding Applicants Must Be Given the Chance to Explain Why Corroborative Evidence Is Not Reasonably Available

Granting the petition for review of the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal, the court found that the IJ and BIA erred in failing to give the petitioner an opportunity to explain why he could not reasonably obtain certain corroborative evidence. (Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr, 5/18/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052639

CA7 Says BIA Held Petitioner to Unduly Demanding Burden on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Allegation

The court found that the BIA should not have faulted petitioner for failing to provide his initial counsel with information significant to a potential U visa application, but denied petition for review because he could not prove prejudice. (Alvarez-Espino v. Barr, 3/6/20, amended 5/20/20) AILA Doc. No. 20031802

CA9 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Petitioner’s “Settled Course” Argument Where BIA Denied Sua Sponte Reconsideration

The court held that the petitioner’s “settled course of adjudication” argument was barred by the court’s general rule that it lacks jurisdiction to review claims that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power in a given case. (Lona v. Barr, 5/15/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052641

CA10 Says Post-Departure Bar Does Not Eliminate an IJ’s Jurisdiction to Move Sua Sponte to Reopen Removal Proceedings

The court held that the BIA erred in ruling that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to move sua sponte to reopen petitioner’s removal proceedings, finding that the post-departure bar does not apply to the IJ’s own sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. (Reyes-Vargas v. Barr, 5/14/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052642

District Court Orders ICE to Explain Why It Cannot Immediately Begin Testing NWDC Detainees for COVID-19

A federal court in Washington ordered ICE to explain why it cannot immediately begin testing detainees at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC) for COVID-19 on a voluntary basis and implement a plan for those that refuse testing. (Castañeda Juarez v. Asher, 5/28/20) AILA Doc. No. 20060133

Complaint Requesting an Injunction Against the April 2020 Proclamation to Protect Minors from Aging Out

AILA and partners filed a complaint requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the government from implementing or enforcing any part of the April 20, 2020, Proclamation to protect minors who may age out. (Gomez, et al., v. Trump, et al., 5/28/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052837

Civil Rights Coalition Files Lawsuit to Protect Families from Decades of Separation

AILA, Justice Action Center, and Innovation Law Lab, with pro bono support from Mayer Brown LLP, have filed a lawsuit on behalf of U.S. citizens and LPRs petitioning for their children and derivative relatives to join them in the U.S. who would “age-out” while the administration’s ban is in place. AILA Doc. No. 20052838

EOIR Announces New BIA Chairman

EOIR announced the appointment of David H. Wetmore as the chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Wetmore was appointed by Attorney General William Barr as the Chief Appellate Immigration Judge of the BIA in May 2020. Notice includes Wetmore’s biographical information. AILA Doc. No. 20052932

Practice Alert: DHS and DOJ Issue Joint Statement Rescheduling Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) Cases

On May 10, 2020, DOJ EOIR and DHS issued a joint statement on the rescheduling of MPP hearings. This practice alert provides an overview of the changes made by this statement to prior DHS procedures for MPP cases without individual notice to affected migrants or their attorneys. AILA Doc. No. 20051347

USCIS Lockbox Rejecting Some I-485 Adjustment of Status Applications

AILA has recently been made aware that USCIS has been issuing notices to applicants and attorneys regarding Form I-485 adjustment of status applications that were wrongfully rejected by the Lockbox on the basis of an expired form version. AILA Doc. No. 20041738

CDC Order Extending and Amending Order Suspending the Introduction of Certain Persons from Canada and Mexico

CDC order extending the 3/20/20 order that suspended the introduction of certain persons traveling from Canada and Mexico until the CDC determines that the danger of further introduction of COVID-19 into the United States has ceased to be a serious danger to the public health. (85 FR 31503, 5/26/20) AILA Doc. No. 20052037

RESOURCES

NYC Fund for Immigration Application Fees

Guide to Filling out USCIS Public Charge Form I-944 and Guide to Gathering Supporting Evidence for USCIS Public Charge Form I-944

Summary of Immigrant Ineligibility for Federal Public Benefits

Practice Advisory: Health Insurance and Public Charge

Sample Cover Letter for DS-5540, Public Charge Questionnaire

Summary Chart: Positive and Negative Public Charge Factors

Why Do My Clients Keep Lying to Me? How Cultural Competence Can Improve Your Practice

Practice Pointer: Advising Your Clients Regarding Social Media Information Collected on Forms DS-160 and DS-260

Practice Pointer: USCIS Rejection of Applications/Petitions Due to Blank Spaces or Other Alleged Incompleteness

Practice Alert: Procedures for Reopening DOS Consular Posts for Visa Services During COVID-19 Pandemic

Updated COVID-19 Practice Pointer: Filing Deadlines for RFEs, NOIDs, NOIRs and I-290Bs (Current as of May 18, 2020)

ICE Air: 1,677 Flights While Covid-19 Rages (Jan-April 2020)

Explainer on Deportations & Expulsions during COVID-19 (Spanish version)

Updated Practice Pointer, Filing Deadlines for RFEs, NOIDs, NOIRs, and I-290Bs

COVID-19 Practice Pointer: Initial Filings of U/T visa petitions and VAWA self-petitions with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service

Vance Center’s Keep Families Together Project – For pro bono counsel abroad

EVENTS

Note: Check with organizers regarding cancellations/changes

6/2/20 U Visa Adjudication Hot Topics

6/3/20 Client Intake and Screening for Relief

6/3/20 DOJ Recognition and Accreditation Webinar

6/3/20 Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Claims: The Good Law, The Bad Law, and How To Protect The Rights of Your Child Client

6/5/20 Overview of Eligibility and Practice Tips for Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Applications

6/6/20-6/30/20 Webinar Series: Citizenship and Naturalization

6/8/20 From RFEs to Federal Court: Latest Strategies in Defending Survivors During the Time of COVID

6/10/20 Victory for Liberians in the U.S.: Deferred Enforced Departure, A Pathway to Citizenship, and An Immigration Success Story

6/11/20 Analyzing Family-Based Asylum Claims After Matter of L-E-A- and Matter of E-R-A-L-

6/12/20 Seeking Release for Detained Clients: COVID-19 Responses and Beyond

7/7/20 Winning Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture Cases

7/15/20 Understanding Motions to Reopen Based on Changed Country Conditions

7/16/20-7/30/20 Webinar Series: Navigating Refugee and Asylee Issues in Turbulent Times

7/20/20 2020 AILA Virtual Annual Conference on Immigration Law

7/23/20 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2020

7/30/20 How to File a Successful Travel Ban Waiver

8/5/20 Unraveling Aggravated Felonies and Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

8/18/20 Strategies for I-601 Waivers in Adjustment of Status Cases

8/26/20 Immigration Legal Services in Rural America

8/27/20 Crafting a Winning Particular Social Group for an Asylum Case

9/14/20 Working with Domestic Violence Immigrant Survivors: The Intersection of Basic Family Law, Immigration, Benefits, and Housing Issues in California 2020

9/22/20 Defenses to Denaturalization

9/23/20-10/7/20 3-Part Webinar Series: Integrating Technology to Improve Your Immigration Legal Services

10/1/20 Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2020: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

ImmProf

Monday, June 1, 2020

The Immigrant Experience: A Conversation with the Executive Producers of Little America

Breaking News: Supreme Court Decides Nasrallah v. Barr

Immigration Article of the Day: Can sanctuary policies reduce domestic violence? by Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes and Monica Deza.

From the Bookshelves: Death in the Haymarket: A Story of Chicago, the First Labor Movement and the Bombing that Divided Gilded Age America by James Green

The Meaning of DACA by Kevin R. Johnson, Michael A. Olivas, and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

Sunday, May 31, 2020

Book Review: Dads for Daughters by Michelle Travis

From the Bookshelves: Eternity Street: Violece and Justice in Frontier Los Angeles by John Mack Faragher

Coronavirus: ICE confirms first case of COVID-19 at immigration detention center in Adelanto

Saturday, May 30, 2020

Immigration Article of the Day: Immigrants and Interdependence: How the COVID-19 Pandemic Exposes the Folly of the New Public Charge Rule by Medha D. Maklouf & Jasmine Sandhu

Friday, May 29, 2020

Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers from the People’s Republic of China

Time to Declare War Against Racism

Immigrant Communities Would Benefit from Community-Based Investigation and Contact Tracing

Civil Rights Coalition Files Lawsuit to Protect Families from Decades of Separation: Families Will Be Unable To Reunite Within Their Lifetimes Due To President Trump’s Proclamation

Immigration Article of the Day: Bridging the Gap From Legalization to Legitimization: How Society Can Help Victims of Trafficking Beyond the T or U Visa by Caleb Ohrn

Thursday, May 28, 2020

Webinar Tomorrow 1-2 EDT: COVID-19 and Border Expulsions of Asylum Seekers

Your Thursday Funny: BBC’s Where Are You From? The Game

From the Bookshelves: Hamilton and the Law by Lisa A. Tucker

USCIS to furlough employees unless Congress provides funding?

Immigration Article of the Day: Families Fleeing: Family Membership as a Basis for Asylum by Christine Natoli

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

GLOW: Netflix show about ’80s women wrestlers tackles immigration, genocide

The Impact of COVID-19 on Noncitizens and Across the U.S. Immigration System

HealthRight International’s Human Rights Clinic Survey

Worker shortage concerns loom in immigrant-heavy meatpacking

One Video, Shot in 11 Countries, Lets 50 Musicians Perform in Solidarity with Fellow Refugees and Migrants

Immigration Article of the Day: Laboratories of Exclusion: Medicaid, Federalism & Immigrants by Medha D. Makhlouf

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Guest Post: What Justifies the Solicitor General’s Certiorari Petition in Albence v. Arteaga-Martinez? by Nancy Morawetz, NYU Law

The (Tragic) Story of Two Brothers from Mexico: Living (and Dying) the Dream

Second man with COVID-19 dies in immigrant detention

Immigration Article of the Day: Ending Forced Labor In ICE Detention Centers: A New Approach by Jonathon Booth

Monday, May 25, 2020

A Syrian Refugee Earns a Bachelor’s Degree

Freedom University Premieres Music Video! “Señor Presidente”

Family Separation 2.0: ICE Tells Parents to Separate From Their Children or Risk Indefinite Detention Together

Happy Memorial Day

Law and Society Assocation Annual Meeting – Online Sessions on Citizenship and Migration

Call for Papers for the Education Law Section at the 2021 AALS Annual Meeting

This email, including any attachments, may contain information that is legally privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the person this email was intended to reach, then do not share, distribute, or copy it. Please notify the person who sent this email immediately and then delete the email, including any attachments.

***********************

I particularly recommend the first item in Elizabeth’s report, “Do Black Lives Matter in the immigrants rights movement?” by Jamila Osman. “The immigrant rights movement has never fully addressed the needs of black migrants in its advocacy work.”

The Trump regime’s “Dred Scottification Project,” often aided by a feckless Congress and complicit Article III Courts, is part of a White Nationalist, far-right agenda that aims at dehumanizing a much larger group than migrants and the Hispanic community. They just happen to be the convenient, easy victims, as shown by the effective repeal of Constitutional due process protections, asylum laws, and immigration laws by the regime using Executive fiat and obvious pretexts (many middle schoolers in the U.S. probably could tell you exactly what Trump’s racist intent is, even if the J.R. Five, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, certain panels of the Second Circuit, and most of the GOP disingenuously claims otherwise) that have garnered neither the widespread outrage (short of a few feckless Dems) nor effective “pushback” from Congress and the Article III Courts that they deserved!

The African-American community is no stranger to the abuses heaped on people of color by bogus and disingenuous calls for “law and order.” The treatment of Haitian TPS holders is every bit as outrageous, racist, and lawless as the Administration’s threats to end DACA — threats enabled and made worse by a Supreme Court without the courage and decency to do its job and “just say no” to the regime’s continuing White Nationalist abuses of our Constitution, our laws, and our national humanity.

What might recent history have been if the Supremes had stood up to Trump’s initial Constitutionally abusive, politically motivated, racially and religiously bigoted pretextual “Travel Ban” instead of going “belly up” and fecklessly inviting more abuses in the name of fabricated “national security?” What if Congress by veto-proof margins had stood up for the legal rights of asylum seekers at the Southern Border and of brown-skinned children not to be “put in cages?” Instead, many GOP politicos actually joined in and egged on these disgusting abuses of humanity and degredations of our justice system. What if the Supremes had delivered a united condemnation of the GOP’s overtly racist schemes to disenfranchise minority voters and deny them the political power they have earned? Everybody ultimately pays a price for spinelessness in the face of tyranny!

America needs and deserves better, from our Executive, our Congress, and our Courts. There’s unlikely to be much long-term equilibrium and “normalcy” in the U.S. until we get substantial changes in the composition, competency, and compassion of all three branches of our failing Government and its democratic institutions.

Government is actually there to provide and guarantee “equal justice for all,” not for the self-preservation of existing institutions and those privileged ones who temporarily inhabit them and apparently believe themselves to be “above the fray” and the human pain and suffering caused by their fecklessness and complicity.

It’s also worth noting, that despite the lack of a systemic response from the Article III’s putting an end to EOIR’s unconstitutionally abusive “enforcement masquerading as a court” system, individual court decisions continue to find abuses by the BIA in fairly applying the “basics” of asylum and immigraton laws. Elizabeth’s report lists a number of recent instances.

Oh, that the Article IIIs would “connect the dots” and ask themselves why a system supposedly set up to provide due process to individuals regularly goes out of its way to misapply the law to wrongfully subject individuals to deportation, sometimes to situations where they have a substantial risk of death or torture upon return?

This November, vote like you life depends on it. Because it does!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Institutions & Those Who Hide in Them, Never!

PWS

06-02-209

🤡AMERICA’S CLOWN PRINCE DECLARES WAR ON: AMERICA! — As America Burns 🥵, He Throws Gasoline On Fire, Poses For Photo Op! — Malicious Incompetence, Unsuitability For Office On Full Display As Leaderless America Careens From Pandemic to Civil Rights Crisis! — “ Trump appeared to be trying to project strength at a moment when his presidency seems feckless and as the nation spins out of control. If it occurred abroad and not in the White House, Americans might perceive a ridiculous self-deluding act of a wanna-be strongman.”

Trump Clown — Donald J. Trump
Dangerous American Clown

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/politics/donald-trump-george-floyd-protest-military/index.html

Stephen Collinson reports for CNN:

(CNN)President Donald Trump‘s made-for-TV embrace of authoritarianism’s imagery and tools at a brittle national moment risks unleashing toxic political forces that threaten America’s democratic traditions.

Trump on Monday turned security forces on peaceful protesters in front of the White House, as tear gas and rubber bullets flew, before declaring himself the “law and order” President. Then, in one of the most bizarre moments in modern presidential history, he strode across the park to stand in front of an iconic church holding a Bible aloft in a striking photo op.

It was a moment of vanity and bravado — orchestrated for the cameras and transparently political — as Trump struggles to cope with protests sweeping the country after the killing of George Floyd and tries to cover up his botched leadership during the coronavirus pandemic. Overnight, the White House’s official Twitter account released a triumphant video of the moment set to music but omitting any signs of the mayhem unleashed on the protesters.

Trump appeared to be trying to project strength at a moment when his presidency seems feckless and as the nation spins out of control. If it occurred abroad and not in the White House, Americans might perceive a ridiculous self-deluding act of a wanna-be strongman.

Trump threatens military force if violence in states isn’t stopped

“I thought I was watching a scene from something in Turkey, and not in the United States,” retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who commanded National Guard troops in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

And after using St. John’s Church, the “church of the presidents,” which had experienced a basement fire during Sunday’s demonstrations, Trump drew immediate criticism from faith leaders, including Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington.

“The President just used the Bible, our sacred text of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and one of the churches of my diocese, without permission, as a backdrop for a message antithetical to the teachings of Jesus,” Budde said on “AC360.”

Trump’s showmanship was motivated in part by anger at media coverage saying he had sheltered in a bunker below the White House on Friday night amid protests in Washington, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins and Kevin Liptak reported. It shows how far Trump will go to protect his own thin skin and how his power plays are often motivated by assaults on his dignity.

But his behavior is also alarming, considering the vast power at his command, uses of demagogic tropes and capacity to buckle the traditions and structures of civilian, democratic government. So while Trump’s turn to the rhetoric of the despotic leaders he so admires had elements of farce, it opened a sinister new chapter in his presidency and a challenge to American norms.

. . . .

***************

Read the rest of Stephen’s report at the link.

America’s national nightmare can’t end until Trump and his GOP enablers are removed from office at the ballot box. Just because he’s an incompetent, cowardly, bully doesn’t mean he’s not dangerous. He is!

This November, vote like your life and our nation’s future existence depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

06-02-20

⚖️👍🏼SUPREMES UPHOLD JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CAT DENIAL, 7-2 — NASRALLAH v. BARR, Opinion By Justice Kavananaugh — Round Table ⚔️🛡 Files Amicus For Winners!

NASRALLAH v. BARR, No. 18-432, June 1, 2020

SUPREME COURT SYLLABUS:

OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

NASRALLAH v. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 18–1432. Argued March 2, 2020—Decided June 1, 2020

Under federal immigration law, noncitizens who commit certain crimes are removable from the United States. During removal proceedings, a noncitizen who demonstrates a likelihood of torture in the designated country of removal is entitled to relief under the international Conven- tion Against Torture (CAT) and may not be removed to that country. If an immigration judge orders removal and denies CAT relief, the noncitizen may appeal both orders to the Board of Immigration Ap- peals and then to a federal court of appeals. But if the noncitizen has committed any crime specified in 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(C), the scope of judicial review of the removal order is limited to constitutional and legal challenges. See §1252(a)(2)(D).

The Government sought to remove petitioner Nidal Khalid Nasral- lah after he pled guilty to receiving stolen property. Nasrallah applied for CAT relief to prevent his removal to Lebanon. The Immigration Judge ordered Nasrallah removed and granted CAT relief. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals vacated the CAT relief order and ordered Nasrallah removed to Lebanon. The Eleventh Circuit declined to review Nasrallah’s factual challenges to the CAT order because Nasrallah had committed a §1252(a)(2)(C) crime and Circuit precedent precluded judicial review of factual challenges to both the final order of removal and the CAT order in such cases.

Held: Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizen’s factual challenges to a CAT order. Pp. 5–13.

(a) Three interlocking statutes establish that CAT orders may be re- viewed together with final orders of removal in a court of appeals. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes noncitizens to obtain direct “review of a final order of re-

2

NASRALLAH v. BARR Syllabus

moval” in a court of appeals, §1252(a)(1), and requires that all chal- lenges arising from the removal proceeding be consolidated for review, §1252(b)(9). The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA) implements Article 3 of CAT and provides for judicial review of CAT claims “as part of the review of a final order of removal.” §2242(d). And the REAL ID Act of 2005 clarifies that final orders of removal and CAT orders may be reviewed only in the courts of appeals. §§1252(a)(4)–(5). Pp. 5–6.

(b) Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) preclude judicial review of factual challenges only to final orders of removal. A CAT order is not a final “order of removal,” which in this context is defined as an order “con- cluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation,” §1101(a)(47)(A). Nor does a CAT order merge into a final order of re- moval, because a CAT order does not affect the validity of a final order of removal. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 938. FARRA provides that a CAT order is reviewable “as part of the review of a final order of removal,” not that it is the same as, or affects the validity of, a final order of removal. Had Congress wished to preclude judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, it could have easily done so. Pp. 6– 9.

(c) The standard of review for factual challenges to CAT orders is substantial evidence—i.e., the agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” §1252(b)(4)(B).

The Government insists that the statute supplies no judicial review of factual challenges to CAT orders, but its arguments are unpersua- sive. First, the holding in Foti v. INS, 375 U. S. 217, depends on an outdated interpretation of “final orders of deportation” and so does not control here. Second, the Government argues that §1252(a)(1) sup- plies judicial review only of final orders of removal, and if a CAT order is not merged into that final order, then no statute authorizes review of the CAT claim. But both FARRA and the REAL ID Act provide for direct review of CAT orders in the courts of appeals. Third, the Gov- ernment’s assertion that Congress would not bar review of factual challenges to a removal order and allow such challenges to a CAT order ignores the importance of adherence to the statutory text as well as the good reason Congress had for distinguishing the two—the facts that rendered the noncitizen removable are often not in serious dis- pute, while the issues related to a CAT order will not typically have been litigated prior to the alien’s removal proceedings. Fourth, the Government’s policy argument—that judicial review of the factual components of a CAT order would unduly delay removal proceedings— has not been borne out in practice in those Circuits that have allowed factual challenges to CAT orders. Fifth, the Government fears that a

Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus

decision allowing factual review of CAT orders would lead to factual challenges to other orders in the courts of appeals. But orders denying discretionary relief under §1252(a)(2)(B) are not affected by this deci- sion, and the question whether factual challenges to statutory with- holding orders under §1231(b)(3)(A) are subject to judicial review is not presented here. Pp. 9–13.

762 Fed. Appx. 638, reversed.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined.

*****************

Score at least a modest victory for the NDPA over the “Deportation Railroad.”

Once again the Round Table 🛡⚔️ intervened with an amicus brief on the side of justice. Here’s a report from Judge Jeffrey Chase:

Hi All: Our Round Table filed an amicus brief in Nasrallah v. Barr. The Supreme Court issued it’s 7-2 decision in the case today, and we were on the winning side.

Kavanaugh wrote the decision, and was joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Alito.

The decision reverses the 11th Cir. and holds that federal courts may review factual issues as well as legal and constitutional issues in CAT appeals filed by noncitizens with criminal convictions falling under 8 C.F.R. section 1252(a)(2)(C).

Gibson Dunn assisted us with the drafting of the brief.

Best, Jeff

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

And, of course, as Jeffrey notes, we couldn’t have done it without help from our pro bono heroes 🥇 over at Gibson Dunn! Many, many thanks!

Great that Justice Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Gorsuch “saw the light” on this one! Not sure how often it will happen in the future, but gotta take what we can get.

Also, given the “haste makes waste” policies thrust on EOIR by the DOJ under Trump, and the significant number of fundamental legal and factual errors made by the BIA, judicial review is likely to turn up additional instances of substandard decision-making.

PWS

06-01-20

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

Related posts:

2020 End of School Year Roundup From Beloit, Wisconsin

By Anna Patchin Schmidt

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicity in the Face of Tyranny, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Officials & Institutions, Never!

Related posts:

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Dishonest, Unethical, Incompetent, and Intentionally Biased “Courts” Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

UPDATE:

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

This November, vote like you life depends on it. Because it does!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Institutions & Those Who Hide in Them, Never!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life and our nation’s future existence depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Related posts: